Early Impressions : Chord Epic Twin vs Naca5

You need to change your way of thinking Lindsay as I am guessing that's how most people perceive the sisters opening comment. I understood her perfectly.

Now whether you can call Chord cable  hi-fi then that is personal per epitome of what they are listening to and what your reference point is!

I'm surprised they don't use hifi forums on linguistics degree courses (or maybe they do).  There is an awful lot of energy regularly expended (pace numerous threads about timing and PRAT) pontificating and arguing over the real meaning of completely abstract concepts like "musicality", "hifi", "emotion".  It's impossible to persuade somebody's own interpretation of these abstract constructs to align with one's own. But hey ho, we all find it irresistible anyway.

Agreed Bluedog, now can someone explain "inky blacks" for me please?  

I agree with the Blue Hound.  

less noisy than silent..???

bluedog posted:

I'm surprised they don't use hifi forums on linguistics degree courses (or maybe they do).  There is an awful lot of energy regularly expended (pace numerous threads about timing and PRAT) pontificating and arguing over the real meaning of completely abstract concepts like "musicality", "hifi", "emotion".  It's impossible to persuade somebody's own interpretation of these abstract constructs to align with one's own. But hey ho, we all find it irresistible anyway.

If it helps, my other half is an English language lecturer and says we just talk "b****cks"?

Sister E. posted:

 

...

What i DO care about is the rather vicious and personal comments from a tiny minority of forum members which follow my posts sometimes. I don't need this.

Unfortunately, it's part of my basic psychological nature to be unaware of how people are or how I affect them, so sometimes I will get it wrong and my responses may come across as offensive.  If this is the case please don't read it that way (and tell me, otherwise I won't know I got it wrong!).

I do try to ensure my posts won't offend but sometimes I won't succeed in this, as I have no significant ability to 'read' people face to face, never mind through written medium.

To all: If I have come across as offensive, please accept my apology.
(At least unless it was with due cause and after repeated personal attacks upon myself!)

you've never been rude to me,

Sister xx

I had A5 for just over 8 years until recently changing to Epic Reference (more expensive than Epic Twin I know). I had an extended audition and listened to well run in ER's for about an hour - then switched back to (my) A5's. It was interesting. The A5's were punchier in the bass - sounding almost a bit 'thuggish' compared to the ER's. The presentation certainly grabbed your attention - it made me sit back in the sofa - and these were my cables, we were on first name terms and shared a beer from time to time! However - to my ears - the ER's gave a more realistic / natural presentation and there was noticeably more detail and a better soundstage. I was upgrading my speakers to KEF Reference 1's and wanted something that would bring out the most in the Uni-Q unit - and this was clearly the ER's. That said I could have happily carried on living with the beer swilling A5's 

'…..beer swilling A5s.' Love that description. Although the idea of having a beer with your speaker cables is a bit weird.

Presumably the A5s beer of choice would either be Tennants Extra or Special Brew. Whereas I am thinking the Epic Reference is more a craft lager or a beautifully balanced real ale kind of cable.

And to think some on here in another thread have been bemoaning the lack of a commonly understood vocabulary to describe what we hear. You have just nailed it. Beer analogies - got to be the way to go!

bluedog posted:

I'm surprised they don't use hifi forums on linguistics degree courses (or maybe they do).  There is an awful lot of energy regularly expended (pace numerous threads about timing and PRAT) pontificating and arguing over the real meaning of completely abstract concepts like "musicality", "hifi", "emotion".  It's impossible to persuade somebody's own interpretation of these abstract constructs to align with one's own. But hey ho, we all find it irresistible anyway.

Agree. The only term upon which we all ought to find common ground is 'hi-fi'. Unless I'm much mistaken this is a contraction of 'High Fidelity', which can safely be defined as faithful reproduction of the original source (the recording artist). I find it interesting that the inferred criticism of Chord Epic is that it is simply too accurate, whilst NACA5 is claimed to be more 'musical' but, according to it's advocates, coarser and less faithful to the original! I would be fascinated to hear an explanation of how music which is not as faithful to the original source (I.e. not as hi-fi) can somehow possess more of this 'boogie factor', which I assume is meant to mean more rhythmically stimulating to the listener, than the original?

nigelb posted:

'…..beer swilling A5s.' Love that description. Although the idea of having a beer with your speaker cables is a bit weird.

Presumably the A5s beer of choice would either be Tennants Extra or Special Brew. Whereas I am thinking the Epic Reference is more a craft lager or a beautifully balanced real ale kind of cable.

And to think some on here in another thread have been bemoaning the lack of a commonly understood vocabulary to describe what we hear. You have just nailed it. Beer analogies - got to be the way to go!

Special Brew or perhaps Leffe.

Timmo1341 posted:

 

Agree. The only term upon which we all ought to find common ground is 'hi-fi'. Unless I'm much mistaken this is a contraction of 'High Fidelity', which can safely be defined as faithful reproduction of the original source (the recording artist). I find it interesting that the inferred criticism of Chord Epic is that it is simply too accurate, whilst NACA5 is claimed to be more 'musical' but, according to it's advocates, coarser and less faithful to the original! I would be fascinated to hear an explanation of how music which is not as faithful to the original source (I.e. not as hi-fi) can somehow possess more of this 'boogie factor', which I assume is meant to mean more rhythmically stimulating to the listener, than the original?

Did you know that, when manufacturers of TVs calibrate and initialise them, they often set colour saturation and contrast higher than is natural because people think it's a better picture? More colourful and vibrant. Not remotely in fidelity with the real world people see everyday, but people prefer something different to a real-life picture.

It seems something similar can happen with sound - some slight distortions can make sound seem "warmer" or "more organic", some high treble distortion can bring your attention to rhythm played on precussive instruments and slight increases in specific frequency ranges in the upper bass region can accentuate the bass lines of a track, making it more prominent and apparently giving it more "boogie factor" (for want of a better phrase?!).  As an exmaple; I like Kudos loudspeakers, as do many, but you'll see on their website that they tune and design their speakers by ear and not by "good measurements". Good measurements tell you the machine works, but they don't tell you that the machine can stir the soul of a listener.  So in truth, 100% fidelity to the recording signal isn't always the goal of designers.  I think Naim have a similar philosophy (they certainly used to).

So, what about Hifi cables? Well, they aren't perfect conductors - a pair of long conductors separated by an insulation material can act like a capacitor, coils of wire can act like an inductor - both of which can affect (in a very small but surprisingly, noticable, way) the relative levels in different frequencies of sound (inductors and capacitors are used in loudspeaker crossovers for this very purpose - to filter or attentuate frequency ranges). 

In my view a common way to describe differences on this forum is using, "it's better", "makes B sound broken" etc. Does that make sense to you? 

I have no problems to understand that musicality or emotion makes the foot tap or the person to enjoy what he/ she hear or feel, and that hifi makes the opposite.

There's another thing to have in mind as well in my view. Listening to the sound or to the music is two very different approaches towards how a box, speaker, cable, room sound.

In the end, what brand etc that give one person this experience/ feeling will differ.

S

Seth posted

 

Did you know that, when manufacturers of TVs calibrate and initialise them, they often set colour saturation and contrast higher than is natural because people think it's a better picture? More colourful and vibrant. Not remotely in fidelity with the real world people see everyday, but people prefer something different to a real-life picture.

It seems something similar can happen with sound - some slight distortions can make sound seem "warmer" or "more organic", some high treble distortion can bring your attention to rhythm played on precussive instruments and slight increases in specific frequency ranges in the upper bass region can accentuate the bass lines of a track, making it more prominent and apparently giving it more "boogie factor" (for want of a better phrase?!).  As an exmaple; I like Kudos loudspeakers, as do many, but you'll see on their website that they tune and design their speakers by ear and not by "good measurements". Good measurements tell you the machine works, but they don't tell you that the machine can stir the soul of a listener.  So in truth, 100% fidelity to the recording signal isn't always the goal of designers.  I think Naim have a similar philosophy (they certainly used to).

So, what about Hifi cables? Well, they aren't perfect conductors - a pair of long conductors separated by an insulation material can act like a capacitor, coils of wire can act like an inductor - both of which can affect (in a very small but surprisingly, noticable, way) the relative levels in different frequencies of sound (inductors and capacitors are used in loudspeaker crossovers for this very purpose - to filter or attentuate frequency ranges). 

Of course - that's why discerning movie buffs buy plasma rather than OLED, or at least neutralise the settings when they get the tv home. 

What you seem to be trying to describe is tone control via cable, rather than the goal many seek, that of the equipment 'getting out of the way', leaving us with the music as originally intended. Surely if Vereker had intended to manipulate the sound in the way you describe, he would have simply included tone controls with his amps?!

Tim

Timmo1341 posted:

Seth posted

 

Did you know that, when manufacturers of TVs calibrate and initialise them, they often set colour saturation and contrast higher than is natural because people think it's a better picture? More colourful and vibrant. Not remotely in fidelity with the real world people see everyday, but people prefer something different to a real-life picture.

It seems something similar can happen with sound - some slight distortions can make sound seem "warmer" or "more organic", some high treble distortion can bring your attention to rhythm played on precussive instruments and slight increases in specific frequency ranges in the upper bass region can accentuate the bass lines of a track, making it more prominent and apparently giving it more "boogie factor" (for want of a better phrase?!).  As an exmaple; I like Kudos loudspeakers, as do many, but you'll see on their website that they tune and design their speakers by ear and not by "good measurements". Good measurements tell you the machine works, but they don't tell you that the machine can stir the soul of a listener.  So in truth, 100% fidelity to the recording signal isn't always the goal of designers.  I think Naim have a similar philosophy (they certainly used to).

So, what about Hifi cables? Well, they aren't perfect conductors - a pair of long conductors separated by an insulation material can act like a capacitor, coils of wire can act like an inductor - both of which can affect (in a very small but surprisingly, noticable, way) the relative levels in different frequencies of sound (inductors and capacitors are used in loudspeaker crossovers for this very purpose - to filter or attentuate frequency ranges). 

Of course - that's why discerning movie buffs buy plasma rather than OLED, or at least neutralise the settings when they get the tv home. 

What you seem to be trying to describe is tone control via cable, rather than the goal many seek, that of the equipment 'getting out of the way', leaving us with the music as originally intended. Surely if Vereker had intended to manipulate the sound in the way you describe, he would have simply included tone controls with his amps?!

Tim

 

Firstly, yes, TV manufacturers over-colour their default picture settings, but that's mainly about the retail buying experience. Under harsh shop lighting and with the TVs lined up in rows, all switched on, a 'natural' TV would look washed out and bland. You should always adjust the picture of a new TV at home. Manufacturers did this with both plasma and OLED - in the days you could actually buy a plasma TV. Now out of production, or very nearly.

The above doesn't apply to hi fi as they're not all switched on at once and are usually played (by a dealer) in a quiet environment. So it's more about personal taste. All hi fi has a tone, and none of it just gets out of the way. The compromises intrinsic to electronics in a domestic setting are too great. Not to mention, there's no meaningful way to define the 'original' sound anyway.

I was amazed listening to some VERY expensive hi fi from different manufacturers - far above my price range - that they all sounded quite different. I had assumed that, as you spend more, the sound would get closer to 'real' and therefore the performances would converge, but if anything it there was more divergence than with mid-priced hi fi. 

"trying to describe"? It seems I suceeded. Could I ask you to tell me what you think, "as originally intended," means?

Seth posted:

"trying to describe"? It seems I suceeded. Could I ask you to tell me what you think, "as originally intended," means?

Concert hall or recording studio.

....still don't know why 'tone controls' are frowned upon? Everyone's room is acoustically different and their hearing too. There's NO common ground when it comes to discussing how a system sounds unless you're sat in that persons listening room. TV manufacturers 'get' this in home viewing environments and provide so many controls to get your viewing experience spot on.

I have a high end amp with tone controls and like my telly, I set them once to suit my room.

Blissfully happy as I never spend any time pondering upgrades, cable etc etc...

Solid Air posted: 

Firstly, yes, TV manufacturers over-colour their default picture settings, but that's mainly about the retail buying experience. Under harsh shop lighting and with the TVs lined up in rows, all switched on, a 'natural' TV would look washed out and bland. You should always adjust the picture of a new TV at home. Manufacturers did this with both plasma and OLED - in the days you could actually buy a plasma TV. Now out of production, or very nearly.

The above doesn't apply to hi fi as they're not all switched on at once and are usually played (by a dealer) in a quiet environment. So it's more about personal taste. All hi fi has a tone, and none of it just gets out of the way. The compromises intrinsic to electronics in a domestic setting are too great. Not to mention, there's no meaningful way to define the 'original' sound anyway.

I was amazed listening to some VERY expensive hi fi from different manufacturers - far above my price range - that they all sounded quite different. I had assumed that, as you spend more, the sound would get closer to 'real' and therefore the performances would converge, but if anything it there was more divergence than with mid-priced hi fi.  

Is it intriguing, that difference in high-end sound.  My point was that "real sounding" (and I mean an extremely high-fidelity to the recording) is often not as entertaining as something which is "messed with" in some small way by the equipment, cables and speakers.  

Linn systems are digital through as much of the reproduction chain as possible - Devialet also do this well. I'm a software engineer and fascinated by digital audio; I would much rather buy a super high-tech system like Linn or Devialet, which can compensate for inadequacies in the room and speakers and theoretically should be vastly more capable of getting much closer to the actual recording.  I can't find one that entertains me the way my Naim system can, though.

JoexNaim posted:

....still don't know why 'tone controls' are frowned upon? Everyone's room is acoustically different and their hearing too. There's NO common ground when it comes to discussing how a system sounds unless you're sat in that persons listening room. TV manufacturers 'get' this in home viewing environments and provide so many controls to get your viewing experience spot on.

I have a high end amp with tone controls and like my telly, I set them once to suit my room.

Blissfully happy as I never spend any time pondering upgrades, cable etc etc...

... because doing acoustic room correction with tone controls is like doing surgery with an axe.

Axe, lol!....nonsense! Tone controls are very gently applied on modern amps and by-passable. They make total sense. And as for 'Room correction' that's a joke as it won't correct for degenerating hearing which is something only the very lucky will avoid in later life.

    ..........  true for heart by-pass but my ol' grandad said the farrier's axe did his foot OK.

Joking aside you're absolutely right (as usual) my room has a +6dB lift from ~100Hz downwards,  but a -4dB "suckout" between 126Hz & 252Hz,  but that is very dependant on volume & its not really audible until the volume gets cranked up,  at my usual listen volume its not far off flat,   We do get used to our systems & room effects,   I can fix it with speaker positioning,  but that gets complaints from significant others,  the trick is not start measuring as that's liable to bring on sleepless nights.

If you have a well sharpened axe, you can use it gently, it's just not precise enough for the job; similarly with tone controls, even applied gently they're still broad band controls and not precise enough for the job.

You wrote "I have a high end amp with tone controls and like my telly, I set them once to suit my room.", so I assumed that's what you were using the tone controls - acoustic room correction.  Incidentally that has no relation to hearing loss, as I only apply room correction below 210Hz and even in the worse of my ears, my (age related) hearing loss only starts above 7KHz.

However the same applies to age related hearing loss - tone controls won't help as you rightly say.

No Huge, tone controls will help those with hearing loss as they allow you to balance the sound to counter the loss of treble or bass you're experiencing as you age. I'm in acoustic heaven because my music sounds absolutely perfect these days. And I'm also re-assured that, should my hearing get even worse I still have loads of adjustment left to me.

I can't get excited about Room correction because it is a very expensive implementation of tone controls and can't take into account an individuals hearing, therefore a really important factor is missing from the equation as the high end trickery scans your room.

Room correction = emperors new clothes.