A "balanced cable" will help mostly if the equipment at each end is also balanced in its circuit design. Single-ended equipment can be made to "look" balanced, i.e., have the benefits in terms of CMR that accrue to balanced circuits, by placing a 1:1 transformer at the input, which accepts the balanced input on its primary and is hooked up in SE mode on its secondaries. Otherwise, a balanced cable per se, connecting two unbalanced sources, will do very little except sound "different" on the basis of its other properties, compared to what you used before. (You may know this; sorry to be pedantic. Some others reading that discussion may not understand.)

Mike, I see what appears to be a garage door in your "listening barn", or is that just a double-wide door so you can admit large speakers and other such things? On the "Anna" thread, you stated your affection for the cartridge; can you say anything about how it sounds compared to the A90 or others that have gone before, e.g., Colibri? Thanks for being so open and sharing as regards the details of your "mega" system.

lewm May 05, 2013 17:55

Hakan
I have done a similar thing with only my monoblock amplifiers between my speakers and the rest of the system off to the right of my room. This requires a run of about 7 meters from the preamp to the amps. Until recently I was using a single ended interconnect which sounded fine but am now awaiting a balanced cable from Ocellia and I expect that with this there will be no degradation but will let you know.
James

vicks7 May 05, 2013 12:47

hi Hakan,

thank you for the kind comments.

it's hard to generalize about interconnect lengths, since there are so many variables with gear output and input gain and impedence, environmental issues, cable geometry, ambient noise levels etc. etc. that said; i do think that interconnect length is more critical for sources to preamp than from preamp to amp, especially when the preamp and amp are of the same brand.

using balanced interconnects potentially can eliminate any degradation with longer lengths as that is their reason for exisiting. again; this depends on the particular preamp and amplifier. if the preamp is designed to properly deal with longer lengths then it should be good.

for a number of years (1997-2001) i used Transparent Reference XL 26 foot interconnects to connect my Mark Levinson preamps and amplifiers. worked great.

i have listened for differences between interconnect lengths but that was years ago. that was when lengths became noticable to me for sources. shorter was better. with preamp to amp the effect was much less noticable. obviously; phono cables are quite sensitive to length with such tiny signals.

so the short answer to your question is assuming your preamp and amp are properly designed for balanced cables any reasonable length should not be a problem. not to say shorter might not be slightly better, you'd have to listen to be sure. my guess is that the sonic benefit of removing your gear from between your speakers would exceed any cost of the length.

as an aside; i use a darTZeel preamp and darTZeel amps. the darTZeel use a propriatary 50 ohm BNC interface that perfectly matches impedence and eliminates any effect of length up to .5 kilometer. i have compared lengths with this interface and it works as it is designed to.

so this issue is important.

best regards,

mikelavigne May 04, 2013 19:46

Pradeep and Lloyd,

while i enjoy a wee bit of Single Malt from time to time, i'm a relative newbie (6-7 years) with that particular affliction. i do have one very interesting 30 year old Macphail's Collection Speyside on hand at the moment (which some recent visitors went gaga over), but Lagavulin is so far my favorite.

not sure i want to develope a taste for more expensive single malts. cheaper to buy a sailboat i think. oh, the sacrifices one must make to enjoy this hobby!

mikelavigne May 04, 2013 19:06

Despite its absurdly rising costs, Lagavulin is still one of the best whiskys period and certainly ranks up there as best value for money at the same time. I think you'd up to 2.5x the price of a bottle of Lagavulin 16 in many cases to match imho. Yoichi 20, Macallan 18 is not quite as good imho but 30 is far better...and now 4 digits, so enough said. Ardberg Supernova is much better (to me)...but they're hard to find anymore. I've yet to try Ardberg Crocodile but have heard very good things.

lloydelee21 May 04, 2013 09:59

Mike
Broadly agree with your summary except if you start with Sl No 6, the rest will sort it self. Lagavulin 16 yr or preferably Laphroaig Quarter Cask will ensure that all systems are high end ....

sunnyboy1956 May 04, 2013 09:26

Hi Mike,

First of all congratulations for building a system and a room like that, even just looking to pictures is somehow a privilege.

I have question for you. I am also considering moving all the front end equipment including their racks behind the listening position so I will need much longer interconnects to power amps (currently IC balanced between pre and power is 1mt but will be replaced with 7-8 meter). I use Transparent Reference XL mm2 version interconnectors and speaker cables. How long are your interconnectors from pre to power? Does longer IC degrade the performance have you checked ever with shorter cables?

Regards,

Hakan

number95 May 04, 2013 06:13

Mike, have you ever tried the Furutech DeMag device? The claims are pretty high and it costs a bit less than $3K, I think. I wonder if one can rank the importance of these various accessories for our analog enjoyment. I guess a great RCM should also be on the list. I presume the more resolving a system, the more the improvement is noticed.

i own the Acoustic Revive RL-30 Mk III LP-CD Demagnatizer; which i've not used much for a couple of years. it looks pretty and it's expensive too, although i'm not sure it's still a current product. it does work on Lps. if you were in my room we could A/B an Lp and you would hear how it brings a vividness and improves clarity and dynamic contrasts. i need to dive back into using it more and see how it's effect has changed at my current level of performance. thanks for the push.

i wholeheartedly agree that with vinyl, having the tools to hear the optimal performance is definitly worth it. an RCM that you are comfortable using is at the top of the list of those tools.

if i was ranking vinyl system tools to optimize playback performance myself, it would look something like this.

1-either have high level set-up skills, or know someone who does who is local. proper set-up trumps everything 'except' having the best software. great set-up moves your system up a couple of levels.
2-set-up tools such as a reliable VTF gauge, proper template for arm mounting, and protractor. secondarily; either own have or have access to alignment software, micro cameras, or a Fosgometer (for azimuth adjustment).
3-RCM
4-brushes and various items (magic eraser, etc.) to keep your records clean as you play them.
5-demagnatizers and flatteners.
6-Lagavulin Single Malt or adult beverage of your choice.

i'm just leaving work tonight as i type this, by the time i get home i'm sure i'll think of something i missed.

mikelavigne May 04, 2013 00:22

hi Ilia,

i respect your perspective on the price of the record weight; i can only say that it does things in the context of my system which do justify it to my ears. like the difference between two cartridges that are $3500 difference in price. and of course, sometimes the less expensive cartridge sounds better (although mostly the more expensive one is better sounding).

enjoy the music!

mikelavigne May 03, 2013 23:55

Miguel,

the NVS is made by Wave Kinetics, and they have designed their own isolation platform for the NVS. which works great, btw. i compared it directly to the air suspension on the Rockport Sirius III, and i was and am impressed by it. obviously both tt's are complete systems but i never had any sense that the NVS was wanting in terms of proper 'footing'. not that any product can't be improved.

i do agree that you can tune a system to sound a particular way by using various types of wood footers. it's one way to go. although i think that wood used as footers does tend to end up 'coloring' the sound in one way or another. which can be good or bad depending. i like more neutral approaches my self.

i prefer my 'wood' to be used in different places (arm wands, speaker cabinets, record weights). i do think that gear cabinets can benefit from being made of wood, like your Tripoint system.

i'm not 'married' to any particular material ultimately; it's about the result. but at this particular point in time, i do enjoy what wood does in specific uses.

mikelavigne May 03, 2013 23:49

Pradeep,

the Wavac SH-833's are wonderful. with 150 watts you would think that it can get the job done with the Rockport's. the Avior's at 89.5db 4 ohm, should do fine with them.

i look forward to the feedback about it from Tech when he visits.

cheers,

mikelavigne May 03, 2013 23:34

Mike, have you ever tried the Furutech DeMag device? The claims are pretty high and it costs a bit less than $3K, I think. I wonder if one can rank the importance of these various accessories for our analog enjoyment. I guess a great RCM should also be on the list. I presume the more resolving a system, the more the improvement is noticed.

peterayer May 02, 2013 14:59

Hi Mike,
Thank you for your kind words.
I have to admit though, I am a little shocked by the pricing of the weight. I thought $2700 for Shun Mook weight was too much! Little do I know. And I thought, I have gotten used to the costs involved in being in this hobby. But still, some prices just startle me still. With all due respect to Joel Durand's designs. As a side note, I've had a chance to speak with him at the last CES, very, very nice gentleman.
This weight is not the only item, which pricing seems high. I'm guilty of buying quite a few of similarly priced pieces myself.
Best

maril555 May 02, 2013 11:13

Hi Mike, If you feel up to it you should experiment with wood footers underneath the NVS, it will yield similar results. Maybe Joel could work his magic. I would love one day to listen to your set up.

himiguel May 01, 2013 13:28

Yes Peterayer there is much more going on the Durand weight than just exotic wood.

himiguel May 01, 2013 13:18

Thanks Mike. After learning a bit more about the Durand weight, it is clear that there is much more going on inside the wood. I had been under the false impression that it was simply a solid block of exotic wood, treated in some way and shaped carefully to produce the result. As such, it would probably be more susceptible to variation. I was mistaken. It is much more complex than I had originally thought.

My good friend and audio buddy was fortunate to hear Joel's system with the record weight about a month ago. He told me that the system sounded very special indeed.

peterayer April 30, 2013 16:19

Mike
The Durand record weight looks stunning but a wee bit too steep for me.
The mono blocs I have on order are the Wavac HE 833 Mk 1.3. These are 150wpc SET monos. I am hoping like mad that they get along with the Rockport Aviors.
All the best
Pradeep

sunnyboy1956 April 30, 2013 12:31

hi Peter,

i was using an Xtremephono mat (a 2 part mat; carbon fibre upper and foam lower) prior to the Durand Record Weight. i prefer the weight without the mat. i do not use the washer, although i admit to not trying it with the weight for the reason you state.

i'm not in a position to know whether the wood varies in performance based on the grain since i've not done that type of comparison myself. since i know that Joel treats the wood i would expect that the sonic performance of the wood is consistent where ever he might use it. i know he has done Finite Element analysis of wood for his tonearms and that he has gone to great lengths to know about the properties of the wood he uses.

mikelavigne April 29, 2013 22:45

hi Ilia,

the Durand Record Weight is $3500.

very nice system, btw.

best regards,

mikelavigne April 29, 2013 22:37

James,

i prefer the weight without the mat.

however; i prefer the mat to the NVS clamp and washer, and i prefer the clamp to 'nude'.

mikelavigne April 29, 2013 22:29

Hi Miguel,

i agree about the wood. for whatever reason when wood is effectively used in audio gear good sounds seem to happen.

maybe such as your Tripoint gear which uses lots of wood.:)

and yes, the Telos will be a nice step forward when you can do it.

mikelavigne April 29, 2013 22:23

This looks very interesting Mike. I'm also curious. Do you use the mat under it and do you use a washer under the LP? I guess the latter only makes sense to improve contact with the platter if the record weight is screwed on which would make it a clamp. The finish is beautiful.

Having read how carefully Joel works and the precision with which he makes protoypes and changes, I wonder if the wood will sound very slightly different if the wood stock from which it is carved has a slightly different grain pattern and/or density.

peterayer April 29, 2013 21:25

Hi Mike,
I'm glad the weight is working for you. Incidentally, I'm looking for a new weight for my Verdier La Platine.
I have Shun Mook on trial from a friend, and it is kind of expensive. I wonder, how much $$ Durand retails for?

maril555 April 29, 2013 17:20

This looks interesting Mike. Are you using the weight with or without the mat?

vicks7 April 29, 2013 13:35

Hi Mike, Durand Record Weight looks great. I always new the correct implementation of wood in a record weight is the correct voicing without sacrificing detail and timing. I'll have to take a listen someday. First I need to finally get a Telos. Enjoy your new found naturalness.

himiguel April 28, 2013 20:49