"POWER KIT"

[Dimante]

Yo tenía pendiente colgar mis impresiones desde hace tiempo, pero he dudado y dudado, incluso lo he consultado con los amigos y con Rocoa que me han animado a hablar con sinceridad, cosa que me cuesta mucho cuando todos hablan maravillas.
Lo cierto es que ya era un poco escéptico, después de montarla hice todos los tests que conozco, puse diferentes estilos musicales, volúmenes, la ponía, la quitaba...a veces parecía que si notaba otras no.
Finalmente Rocoa me dijo que me dejara de cambios y escuchara y escuchara con la regleta y cuando la fuera a enviar y pusiera mis cables lo notaría, pero no, al menos no algo claro.
La verdad es que yo no uso regleta, tras la visita de Rocoa enchufo los Puccini y Paganini directamente a la pared con unos cables que me prestó.
Por otra parte, mi equipo tiene un perfil cálido y pienso que ello hace que este tipo de cambios se note menos. Además que supongo que en un equipo de auriculares tipo V8+701 se debe de notar mejor, al ser mas cercano, detallado y delicado.
Me hubiese gustado escucharlo con alguien que me "abriera" las orejas y me dijera, pon esto, escucha allí el tal...lo notas?, o algo así. Pero no pudo ser.

En fín, consciente de que son mis limitaciones las culpables lamento no haberla disfrutado como los demás. Pero bueno, espero que se cure con el tiempo.

Saludos .

Bueno, después de varias opiniones de diferentes ususarios tenemos un poco de todo. Gente que ha notado un cambio muy notable, otros que han notado la mejora de un cableado de calidad, pero poca o ninguna diferencia entre la regleta ryder y otros cables y regletas que ya eran muy buenos y con tu aportación, Cabillas, otros que no han podido apreciar una mejora sustancial.
Se agradecen todas las opiniones, desde luego. Y deja claro que estos temas son interesantes y requieren una prueba seguro.
Saludos.

[rocoa]

Es como si el volumen se incrementara un 10% pero no solo eso sino que las notas tienen una fuerza y vigor desconocidos.

Es una percepción casi unánime entre los que han probado y usan la Ryder. No me he preocupado en medir objetivamente si eso es así ni lo voy a hacer. Los que me conocéis ya sabéis como hago yo las medidas
Independientemente del nivel de SPL obtenido y de que pueda aumentar por un mejor suministro energético hay algo que sí tengo claro. Se trata de que hay más música y menos "ruido".
Para explicarme, imaginad que encendéis una cerilla en un bar con ambiente ruidoso.
Imagindad también que lo hacéis también en una iglesia silenciosa, por poner un ejemplo.
Obviamente la percepción sonora de esa acción será mayor en el ambiente silencioso.
Eso pasa con la Ryder, que percibiremos más claramente las microinformaciones que forman parte del mensaje musical, los armónicos, los pequeños contrastes dinámicos, la focalización de los instrumentos........debido a la ausencia del enmascaramiento que los "gremlims" producen en la compleja señal musical.

yo que aun no he probado la Ryder, (yo lo he elegido asi), tengo tras haber leido todas vuestras impresiones del POWER KIT, temo probar la miel, mas que nada por mi cartera, ppor eso he decidido esperara hasta un dia como hoy donde ya estoy trabajando y podre invertir algo en esto. Asi que me pongo a la cola.

No te preocupes que tendrás ocasión de hacerlo en breve si ese es tu deseo.

En fín, consciente de que son mis limitaciones las culpables lamento no haberla disfrutado como los demás. Pero bueno, espero que se cure con el tiempo.

Me alegro de que por fin hayas escrito, Cabillas. De eso se trata, de exponer tus impresiones personales sin condicionantes.
Creo que sé la razón por la que ello ha sido así y la expondré cuando este proyecto se encuentre más desarrollado.
De momento me ceñiré a mencionar el sistema.

¿podeis enviarme el power kit a rusia? Es broma, pero desde luego, si estuviese en España, me encantaría probar, ya que mi experiencia con cables de red, regletas, etc es mínima / nula (solo tengo dos tipos de cables de interconexión, unos van den hul y atlas)

Pues no habría ningún problema pero estás en uno de los paises a los que es más complicado enviar paquetes.
He hecho tres envíos a Rusia las pasadas semanas y dos de ellos todavía no han llegado. Son excesivamente celosos en los temas aduaneros. Para que te hagas una idea envié un preamplificador a Korea hace una semana y ya está en manos de su nuevo propietario. Lo de Rusia es un auténtico dolor de cabeza.

Se agradecen todas las opiniones, desde luego. Y deja claro que estos temas son interesantes y requieren una prueba seguro.

Tú lo has dicho, Dimante. Estás e la lista de espera si ese es tu deseo, por supuesto.

Saludos

Rodrigo Comba

[azelais]

Se me había olvidado. El incremento "subjetivo" del SPL es palpable, doy fé.


Un saludo

[Vedder]

No te preocupes rocoa, quizás en Navidades pase 3 semanas en España y pueda ser el momento de intentar probar, lo de enviarlo a Rusia ni se os ocurra!!! (por experiencia propia), se puede llevar el power kit en aduanas 4 años, es una autentica locura (os podría contar cada cosa...)

Saludos y gracias.

[Dimante]

Tú lo has dicho, Dimante. Estás e la lista de espera si ese es tu deseo, por supuesto.

Saludos

Rodrigo Comba

Gracias, Rocoa.
Puede que me anime, pero me da que mi equipo no estará a la altura de un componente de tanto nivel. Ni siquiera tengo aún la fuente de alimentación del v8, para que te hagas una idea... y ese es uno de mis principales objetivos, junto con una mejora en la fuente, en la que gracias a Azelais estoy a medio camino.

Saludos.

[Eferbel]

CABILLAS te agradezco un montón tu sinceridad, de verdad. Creo que de esto se trata. Que cada uno ponga sus percepciones sean cuales sean y sin dejarse influenciar. Para mi son igual de validas que el resto de las opiniones o experiencias. De todo se aprende. 

[Cabillas]

Gracias, compi, como podéis ver por el tiempo transcurrido no ha sido fácil para mí. .

[Vedder]

yo de todas formas imagino que este tipo de cambios (que imagino no serán drásticos) se notarán en mayor medida en función de un equipo mas o menos resolutivo, etc.

Bueno, es la idea que tengo, ya probaré, ya!

[azelais]

yo de todas formas imagino que este tipo de cambios (que imagino no serán drásticos) se notarán en mayor medida en función de un equipo mas o menos resolutivo, etc.

Bueno, es la idea que tengo, ya probaré, ya!

Desde mi experiencia, diría que es así. Cuanto más resolutivo y, acondicionaod esté el equipo, más se notarán las aportaciones de un elemento así. Pero, no se si llamarlas drásticas; el perfil sonoro no varía, pero la mejora que obtiene el resultado final es muy de agradecer.


Un saludo

[vermellfort]

Me sumo al agradecimiento a CABILLAS que hago extensivo y en igual medida a todos los demás que han probado la regleta y han expuesto sus experiencias.
Pero si algo quisiera destacar es que es la primera vez que leo un comentario sobre el peliagudo tema del cableado en el que una opinión divergente con la corriente mayoritaria es expuesta desde la serenidad, la sinceridad y la total ausencia de prejuicios.
Lo que me interesa a mí (y supongo que a otros muchos) es la experiencia personal y subjetiva con un determinado componente, y que no se necesiten argumentos pseudotécnicos para intentar justificar lo que ha sido percibido, sea a priori o a posteriori. No dejo de estar perplejo cada vez que releo en ocasiones en qué terminan muchos posts dedicados al asunto, rozando casi el insulto personal.
Gracias CABILLAS.

[vermellfort]

yo de todas formas imagino que este tipo de cambios (que imagino no serán drásticos) se notarán en mayor medida en función de un equipo mas o menos resolutivo, etc.
Bueno, es la idea que tengo, ya probaré, ya!

Desde mi experiencia, diría que es así. Cuanto más resolutivo y, acondicionaod esté el equipo, más se notarán las aportaciones de un elemento así. Pero, no se si llamarlas drásticas; el perfil sonoro no varía, pero la mejora que obtiene el resultado final es muy de agradecer.

Un saludo

Desde la mía también. Otra condición es que conozcamos nuestro equipo a la perfección y llevemos bastante tiempo conviviendo con él y, sobre todo, disfrutándolo.

[Raul_77]

Seguramente no es necesario darle muchas vueltas al tema. Por un lado los sistemas de filtrado se mostrarán más o menos eficaces, o serán innnecesarios, en función de lo polucionado que esté nuestro sistema eléctrico, si por suerte en nuestra casa estuviera completamente limpio su acción tendría que ser nula y no resultarían necesarios. Igual que si no estamos enfermos no necesitamos medicación. Los sistemas de filtrado de la red eléctrica entran dentro de los dispositivos de correción, si es necesaria una correción es porque hay un defecto, si no hay defecto no es necesaria ninguna corrección.

Y por otro lado, en realidad la percepción del sonido es diferente en cada persona, algo que acostumbra a no tenerse en cuenta, ya que nuestro sistema auditivo es tan individual como nuestras huellas dactilares. Lo que incluyo a continuación está sacado de un libro sobre diseño de estudios de grabación, es un tanto largo pero merece la pena leerlo:

[2.4.1 Chacun A Son Oreille
In 1896, Lord Rayleigh wrote in his book, The Theory of Sound (Strutt, 1896,
p. 1) 'The sensation of a sound is a thing sui generis, not comparable with
any of our other senses. . . .Directly or indirectly, all questions connected with
this subject must come for decision to the ear, . . . and from it there can be no
appeal'. Sir James Jeans concluded his book Science & Music (Cambridge
University Press, 1937) with the sentence 'Students of evolution in the animal
world tell us that the ear was the last of the sense organs to arrive; it is beyond
question the most intricate and the most wonderful'.
The displacement of the ear drum when listening to the quietest perceiv-
able sounds is around one-hundredth of the diameter of a hydrogen
molecule, and even a tone of 1 kHz at a level of 70 dB still displaces the ear
drum by less than one-millionth of an inch (0.025 micrometres). Add to all
these points the fact that our pinnae (outer ears) are individual to each
one of us, and one has a recipe for great variability in human auditory
perception as a whole, because the ability to perceive these minute differences
is so great.
In fact, if the ear was only about 10 dB more sensitive than it is, we would
hear a permanent hiss of random noise, due to detection of the Brownian
motion of the air molecules. Some people can detect pitch changes of as little
as 1/25th of a semitone (as reported by Seashore). Clearly there is much vari-
ability in all of this from individual to individual, and one test carried out on
16 professionals at the Royal Opera, Vienna, showed a 10:1 variability in
pitch sensitivity from the most sensitive to the least sensitive. What is more,
ears all produce their own non-linear distortions, both in  the form of har-
monic and inter-modulation distortions. I had one good friend who liked
music when played quietly, but at around 85 dB SPL she would put her hands
to her ears and beg for it to be turned down. It appeared that above a certain
level, her auditory system clipped, and at that point all hell broke loose inside
her head.
Of course, we still cannot enter each other's brains, so the argument about
whether we all perceive the colour blue in the same way cannot be answered.
Similarly we cannot know that we perceive what other people hear when
listening to similar sounds under similar circumstances. We are, however,
now capable of taking very accurate in-ear measurements, and the suggestion
from the findings is that what arrives at the eardrums of different people is
clearly not the same, whereas what enters different people's eyes to all
intents and purposes is the same. Of course, some people may be colour-
blind, whilst others may be long-sighted, short-sighted, or may have one or a
combination of numerous other sight anomalies. Nevertheless, what arrives
at the eye, as the sensory organ of sight, is largely the same for all of us.
However, if we take the tympanic membrane (the ear drum) as being the
'front-end' of our auditory system, no such commonality exists. Indeed, even
if we extend our concept of the front-end to some arbitrary point at, or in front
of, our pinnae, things would still not be the same from person to person
because we all have different shapes and sizes of heads and hair styles. This
inevitably means that the entrances to our ear canals are separated by differ-
ent distances, and have different shapes and textures of objects between
them. Given the additional diffraction and reflexion effects from our torsos,
the answer to the question of whether we all 'see the same blue' in the audi-
tory domain seems to be clearly 'no', because even what reaches our ear
drums is individual to each of us, let alone how our brains' perceive the
sounds.
There is abundant evidence to suggest that many aspects of our hearing are
common to almost all of us, and this implies that there is a certain amount of
'hard-wiring' in our brains which predisposes us towards perceiving certain
sensations from certain stimuli. Nevertheless, this does  not preclude the
possibility that some aspects of our auditory perception may be inherited, and
that there may be a degree of variability in these genetically influenced
features. Aside from physical damage to our hearing system, there may also
be cultural or environmental aspects of our lives which give rise to some of
us developing different levels of acuteness in specific aspects of our hearing, or
that some aspects may be learned from repeated exposure to certain stimuli.
It would really appear to be stretching our ideas of the evolutionary pro-
cess beyond reason, though, to presume that the gene pairings which code our
pinnae could somehow be linked to the gene pairings which code any variables
in our auditory perception systems. Furthermore, it would seem totally unrea-
sonable to expect that if any such links did exist, that they could function in
such a way that one process could complement the other such that all our
overall perceptions of sound were equal. In fact, back in the 1970s, experi-
ments were carried out (which will be discussed in later paragraphs) which
more or less conclusively prove that this could not be the case. Almost with-
out doubt, we do not all hear sounds in the same way, and hence there will
almost certainly always be a degree of  subjectivity in the judgement and
choice of studio monitoring systems. There will be an even greater degree of
variability in our choice of domestic  hi-fi loudspeakers, which tend to be
used in much less acoustically controlled surroundings.
Much has been written about the use of dummy head recording techniques
for binaural stereo, and it has also been frequently stated that most people
tend to perceive the recordings as sounding more natural when they are made
via mouldings of their own pinnae. In  fact, many people seem to be of the
opinion that we all hear the recordings at their best if our own pinnae mould-
ings are used, but this is not necessarily the case. It is true that the perception
may be deemed more natural by reference to what we hear from day-to-day,
but it is also true that some people naturally hear certain aspects of sound
more clearly than others. In my first book,
2
I related a story about being
called to a studio by its owner, to explain why hi-hats tended to travel in an
arc when panned between the  loudspeakers; seeming to come from a point
somewhere above the control room window when centrally panned. The
owner had just begun to use a rather reflexion-free control room, in which the
recordings were rendered somewhat bare. On visiting the studio, all that I
heard was a left-to-right, horizontal pan. We simply had different pinnae.
In a well-known AES paper, and in  her Ph.D. thesis, the late Puddie
Rodgers
3,4
described in detail how early reflexions from mixing consoles, or
other equipment, could cause response dips which mimicked those created by
the internal reflexions from the folds and cavities of different pinnae when
receiving cues from different directions. In other words, a very early reflex-
ion from the surface of a mixing console could cause comb filtering of a
loudspeaker response which could closely resemble the in-ear reflexions
which may cause a listener to believe that the sound was coming from a
direction other than that from which it was actually arriving. Median plane
vertical perception is very variable from individual to individual, and in the
case mentioned in the last paragraph, there was almost certainly some source
of reflexion which gave the studio owner a sensation of the high frequencies
arriving from a vertically higher source, whilst I was left with no such sensa-
tion. The differences were doubtless due to the different shapes of our pinnae,
and the source of reflexions was probably the mixing console.
In the 'letters' page of the October 1994 Studio Sound magazine, recording
engineer Tony Batchelor  very courageously admitted that  he believed that
he had difficulty in perceiving what other people said stereo should be like.
He went on to add, though, that  at a demonstration of Ambisonics he
received 'a unique listening experience'. Clearly to Tony Batchelor, stereo
imaging would not be at the top of his list of priorities for his home hi-fi
system, yet he may be very sensitive to intermodulation distortions, or frequency
imbalances, to a degree that would cause no concern to many other people.
Belendiuk and Butler
5
concluded from their experiments with 45 subjects
that 'there exists a pattern of spectral cues for median sagittal plane positioned
sounds common to all listeners'. In order to prove this hypothesis, they
conducted an experiment in  which sounds were emitted from different,
numbered, loudspeakers, and the listeners were asked to say from which
loudspeaker the sound was emanating. They then made binaural recordings
via moulds of the actual outer ears of four listeners, and asked them to repeat
the test, via headphones, of the recordings made using their own pinnae. The
headphone results were very similar to the direct results, suggesting that the
recordings were representative of 'live' listening. Not all the subjects were
equally accurate in their correct  choices, with some, in both their live and
recorded tests, scoring better than others in terms of identifying the correct
source position.
Very interestingly, when the tests were repeated with each subject listen-
ing via the pinnae recordings of the  three other subjects in turn, the experi-
menters noted, 'that some pinnae, in their role of transforming the spectra of
the sound field, provide more adequate (positional) cues . . . than do others'.
Some people, who scored low in both the live and recorded tests, using their
own pinnae, could locate more accurately via other peoples' pinnae. Conversely,
via some pinnae, none of the subjects could locate very accurately. The above
experiments were carried out in the vertical plane. Morimoto and Ando,
6
on
the other hand, found that, in the horizontal plane, subjects generally made
fewer errors using their own head-related transfer functions (HRTFs), i.e. via
recordings using simulations of their own pinnae and bodies. What all the
relevant reports seem to have shown, over the years, is that different pinnae
are differently perceived, and the whole HRTF is quite distinct from one
person to another. All of these differences relate to the different perceptions of
different sound fields.
Studio Monitoring Design (Newell, 1995)
2
also related the true story of
two well-respected recording engineers who could not agree on the 'correct'
amount of high frequencies from a monitor loudspeaker system which gave
the most accurate reproduction when compared to a live cello. They disagreed
by a full 3 dB at 6 kHz, but this disagreement was clearly not related to their
own absolute high frequency sensitivities because they were comparing the
sound of the monitors to a live source. The only apparent explanation to this is
that because the live instrument and the loudspeakers produced different
sound fields, the perception of the sound field was different for each listener.
Clearly, all the high frequencies from the loudspeaker came from one very
small source, the tweeter, whilst the  high frequency  distribution from the
instrument was from many points – the strings and various parts of the body.
The 'highs' from the cello radiated, therefore, from a distributed source hav-
ing a much greater area than the tweeter. Of course, the microphone could
add its own frequency tailoring  and one-dimensionality, but there would
seem to be no reason why the perception of this should differ from one lis-
tener to another.
So, given the previous discussion  about pinnae transformations and the
different HRTFs as they relate to sounds arriving from different directions,
it does not seem too surprising  that sound sources with spacially different
origins may result in  spectrally different perceptions for different people.
Tony Batchelor's statements about his not being able to appreciate stereo, yet
readily perceiving Ambisonic presentations of spacial effects, would seem to
be strongly related to aspects of the sound field. He and I would no doubt
attach different degrees of  importance to the horizontal effects of stereo if
working on a joint production. Martin Young (the aforementioned studio
owner) and I clearly had different vertical perception when panning a hi-hat;
and the two well-known engineers  could not agree on a natural high-
frequency level in a live versus loudspeaker test.
The implications of all this would suggest that unless we can reproduce an
accurate sound field, we will never have universal agreement on the question
of 'the most accurate' monitoring systems. Add to this a good degree of per-
sonal preference for different concepts of what constitutes a good sound, and
it would appear that some degree of monitoring and control room variability
will be with us for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the last 20 years have
seen some very great strides forward  in the understanding of our auditory
perception systems, and this has been a great spur to the advancement of
loudspeaker and control room designs. Probably, though, we have still barely
seen the tip of the iceberg, so it will be interesting to see what the future can
reveal.
To close, let us look at some data that has been with us for 40 years, or more.
The plots shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6 were taken from work by Shaw.
7
Figure 2.5 shows the average, in-ear-canal, 0° and 90° responses for ten people.
Note how the ear canal receives a very different spectrum depending upon
the direction of arrival of the sound. Figure 2.6 shows the ten individual
sources from which Figure 2.5 was derived. The differences from person to
person are significant, and the response from one direction cannot be inferred
from the response from a different direction.
Given these differences, and all of the aspects of frequency discrimination,
distortion sensitivity, spectral response differences, directional response
differences, psychological differences, environmental differences, cultural
differences, and so forth, it would be almost absurd to expect that we all per-
ceive the same balance of characteristics from any given sound. It is true that
whatever we each individually hear is natural to each one of us, but when any
reproduction system creates any imbalance in any of its characteristics, as
compared to a natural event, the aforementioned human variables will inevi-
tably dictate that any shortcomings in the reproduction system will elicit
different opinions from different people vis-à-vis the accuracy of reproduc-
tion. As to the question of whether it is more important to reduce the
harmonic distortion in a system by 0.02%, or the phase accuracy of 5° at
15 kHz, it could well be an entirely personal matter, and no amount of general
discussion could reach any universal consensus. Indeed, Lord Rayleigh was
right; the sensation of sound is a thing,  sui generis  (sui generis meaning
'unique').]

Hay un par de figuras que no he incluido pero su falta no resta ninguna claridad al texto.

Saludos, Raúl

[Nando22]

Hola a todos.

Desde hace unos días puedo disfrutar de una Ryder a tiempo completo en mi equipo y estas son las impresiones sobre la misma, que hace poco compartía con un compañero del foro que me preguntaba por ella.

¿La Ryder, que cómo va la Ryder?

Esto es tremendo!  Como suena el equipo, madre mia!  Después de unos días esto suena cada vez más mejor, no sé si por el rodaje, el ajuste y la estabilización de los cables o por la adaptación de mi cerebro al equipo. O por todo ello a la vez.

Como han dicho muchos foreros "está supervitaminado", un plus de calidad en todos los órdenes de la reproducción musical, dinámica, escena, detalle, extensión, profundidad.....

Ahora estoy escuchando el conjunto Primare, qué bueno es. Por no hablar del Technics con la Denon DL 103, un sonido lujurioso y embriagador, todo ello con los monitores Opera Prima. Aún no he probado ni el valvular, ni el V8, ni las ProAc. Me voy dosificando, jeje...

Estoy muy contento. Qué razón tenías, en aquella primera conversación. Tengo un equipazo pero aún no lo sabía. Los cables y la alimentación, si señor! Con los Cardas ganó muchísimo, pero la Ryder es la que eleva el nivel general, permitiendo que todos los componentes trabajen a su verdadero nivel de calidad . No sé como habría sonado introduciendo el Rodio en el sistema pero ahora mismo la naturalidad y calidez con la que fluye la música me parece asombrosa.

Ahora tengo la sospecha de que hay aficionados que venden sus equipos en busca de otros de gama superior, y en busca de no se sabe bien qué, pero en realidad nunca han sabido cómo sonaba su equipo realmente. Hasta tal punto creo que la alimentación y el cableado son importantes en la configuración de nuestro sistema.

Un saludo.

[djmochax]

Enhorabuena!!  Que envidia poder disfrutar de la Rayder indefinidamente......

[Nando22]

Hola Djmochax!

Pues sí todo un lujo, como tú bien sabes.
Creo que tienes unos cables de los que nos gustan tanto, ¿no? Y que tal?

Saludos.