hermanv - regarding: "Speaker cable blind listening tests"

[StevenSurprenant]

hermanv - I was snooping around and found the thread started by musicoverall posted on 03-22-2005 and was impressed with your responses on that thread since it directly reflects my attitude toward this subject.

I have to say that the knowledge from some members on both sides of this debate were impressive, however I too am of the camp that wire does sound different, but can't explain it.

My experience is that wire changes the transparency of the soundstage and the focus of the imagery (the images have better form in space). I also agree that that a tone control cannot duplicate what the wire does.

While I was reading the thread, it occured to me that I got the same effect from room treatment. There was reduced smearing of the image which I percieved as greater transparency. In addition, I could hear some things that were previously masked. This made me wonder if that is what the wires were doing electrically. Since room treatment reduces reflection, perhaps there are reflections in the wires we use that produce this effect. Of course, if these reflections are occuring are they measurable?

This is just a thought, perhaps not a good one, but the way I see it, wire does sound different and the tests that we now perform on wire doesn't support my position. Maybe we aren't doing the correct tests?

One other thing...

Double blind tests are not valid for several reasons. First, everyone that claims to hear differences in wire do so on their home system at their leisure. They are familiar with the sound of their system, are not under pressure to perform, and there are no time limits. DBT's are normally done on someone elses system, with someone elses wire, and there is pressure to get it right.

So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color. Give them to that person and let them decide which is which in their home system at their own leisure. This would eliminate all the variables that a normal DBT imparts on the test.

[hydroman]

'Justification' is powerful. If i spent that $$ on it - it must be good! (Or i am admitting i am a fool)
People who agree with me are smart. (Those who disagree are obviously idiots and should be ignored)
I once spent an hour listening to high end vs low end CD players to find a difference (to help sell them). By the time i was done - there WAS a difference - the high end unit really 'rang' a bell on a certain piece. It resonated - it had depth ! It was exquisite! No one else could hear it - nor was willing to pay the higher price. I kinda' place esoteric cables in this box. There probably is a difference if you listen hard enough - but is it worth it? Versus buying more CDs?

My $.02 worth.

[mlsstl]

> So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with
> and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color.

I'd bet that if the results didn't prove what the person wished proved, you'd have him declaring the test invalid. He would simply claim that the disguising process affected the sound quality of the underlying cable in some manner. If you have people elevating speaker cables off the floor with special lifts, do you really think you can apply an exterior coating or sheath to a cable and not have them claim the electrons disturbed?

[Dusty Chalk]

Basically what he's suggesting is a long-term DBT. I'd be all for that, except I have a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the circumstances don't disturb the test. How about a mostly-acoustically-transparent screen? It'd have to be right behind the speakers...

[mlsstl]

> How about a mostly-acoustically-transparent screen? It'd have to be right behind the speakers...

See, we're already getting into "buts" and "excepts". First people complain about neutral listening sites because they are not familiar with the equipment and set-up. Has to be in their home. Covered cables break all kind of "rules." So we're now talking about screens. They'd have to be acoustically transparent but not visually. (Do screens have a break-in period? Are they really, I mean really, transparent to sound?)

Of course, we'd also have to live with them in our residence for an extended period. Many of the cable-difference advocates talk about picking up subtle differences over a period of months. A short term evaluation would be another "out."

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. Of course, they'd tell themselves that would have no influence on what they were hearing.

My observation is that certain audiophiles would never accept any type of truly blind test situation. There will always a variety of special demands that will defeat the test, or "defects" in the test setup that will allow them to ignore the results to the extent needed to satisfy their ego. Regardless of the theoretical validity and advantages of DBT, I simply cannot envision ANY setup that would satisfy a certain segment of the audiophile community.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, I was just suggesting screens because there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another -- anyone with any experience in this will be able to recognize a cable by its terminations.

And yes, the dielectrics do make a difference. There's at least one company that believes the best dielectric is no dielectric (Anti-Cables).

[mlsstl]

> there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another...

You help make my case, that regardless of any what a DBT could theoretically prove, the practical reality is that there is probably no implementation possible that would 1) either be truly double-blind, or 2) not give an excuse or "out" to discount the results.

Of course, many people also are confused about what a DBT is. They think it must have some type of rapid switching mechanism to pop back and forth between two components. What double-blind really means is that the test subject does not know which product is currently under test and that the immediate test administrator also does not know. The latter is necessary to prevent subtle hints (whether intentional or subconscious) to the test subject. A screen in a listening room - especially for a long period - fails to provide any real confidence that blindness would be maintained at the needed level.

As such, I simply don't think it is possible to design a DBT for a certain segment of the audiophile community. Far too much terminal uniqueness in our psyches.

[FLZapped]

> there's no way you're going to get away with disguising one cable as another...

You help make my case, that regardless of any what a DBT could theoretically prove, the practical reality is that there is probably no implementation possible that would 1) either be truly double-blind, or 2) not give an excuse or "out" to discount the results.

These tests aren't designed necessarily used to "prove" anything, other than two samples are either different, or not different.



Of course, many people also are confused about what a DBT is. They think it must have some type of rapid switching mechanism to pop back and forth between two components. What double-blind really means is that the test subject does not know which product is currently under test and that the immediate test administrator also does not know. The latter is necessary to prevent subtle hints (whether intentional or subconscious) to the test subject. A screen in a listening room - especially for a long period - fails to provide any real confidence that blindness would be maintained at the needed level.

Correct, rapid switching is an implemtation method based on the observations that our arual memory is less than one second.



As such, I simply don't think it is possible to design a DBT for a certain segment of the audiophile community. Far too much terminal uniqueness in our psyches.

That is exactly what these tests are for, to deprive as many sense as possible in order to force us to judge only with our ears.


-Bruce

[musicoverall]

Correct, rapid switching is an implemtation method based on the observations that our arual memory is less than one second.
Bruce

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO. I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching. Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.

[musicoverall]

but is it worth it? Versus buying more CDs?

My $.02 worth.

Good point. I ultimately found myself having to make a choice between keeping the subtle differences of the Cardas cables in my system or having new music software. The cables were NOT worth it in that context.

[musicoverall]

>

We would also have to believe that someone could have cables in their home behind a screen for an extended period and resist all temptation to take a peek. .

If someone peeks, what would be the point of the test? I had no problem NOT peeking -was not even remotely tempted. If I had, the whole thing would have been a waste of time. If someone is truly interested in answering the question (for themselves, if no one else) of cable sonics, they'd have to be honest.

[Feanor]

...
One other thing...

Double blind tests are not valid for several reasons. First, everyone that claims to hear differences in wire do so on their home system at their leisure. They are familiar with the sound of their system, are not under pressure to perform, and there are no time limits. DBT's are normally done on someone elses system, with someone elses wire, and there is pressure to get it right.

So, how could we improve on the DBT? Simple! Take two wires that someone already has experiance with and claims that they do sound different and disguise them to look identical, except for color. Give them to that person and let them decide which is which in their home system at their own leisure. This would eliminate all the variables that a normal DBT imparts on the test.

I personally believe that DBTs, as designed and conducted, are often flawed. For example, in my opinion, a short coming of many DBTs is that participants are not permitted the chance to familiarize themselves to their own satisfaction with the different sources in sighted listening before the test is beguns; another flaw would be that they cannot control how long they get to listen to each sound, and/or when the switch to the other (or possibly the same) sound is made. Regardless however, the only valid outcome for even the most rigorous test is, "The test revealed that the test subjects, under the test conditions, could/could not reliably distinguish between the sounds". Of course, remember that not all DBTs ever conducted have turned up negative results.

But to generalize regarding negative results, I ask, if you cannot distinguish different sounds under reasonable DBT conditions, how important can those differences really be???

[Mash]

Anytime someone advocates an action involving you spending your money, your first question should be: Are they in a position to gain financially, directly or indirectly, from my purchase decision?

It is exceedingly funny to me when people will more readily believe someone with either a direct financial stake in a purchase decision (a dealer) or an indirect stake in the purchase decision (a moderator here who wishes to protect the advertisers) than they will believe someone who has NO financial stake in their decision.

Do you spend $1300 on wires, or do you spend $1300 on a Jolida 302B plus a pair of Magnepan MMG? This is a simple question for me to answer.

If you try some exotic wires and you cannot hear any difference, why your system is simply not resolving enough! It CANNOT be that those wires made no difference, no sir! So the dealer can help you build a 'more resolving' system.... for $$$, of course!

You STILL cannot hear any difference with those new wires? Obviously, your system is STILL simply not resolving enough! The dealer can help you build an 'even more resolving' system.... for $$$$, of course!

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our wires, But in our systems, that we are poor.

Now if you (think you) DO hear a difference using those exotic wires, OH, JOY! You are then an anointed and holy audiophile with a wonderful sound-system, and you are a leader of audiophiles and men, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. By the way, we just happen to have some OTHER exotic wires for you to try that are even better than the ones you just bought but of course they cost a little more. Trade in your old wires? Well, the used-wire market is a little soft right now, and True Audiophiles would be concerned that you might not have broken your wires in correctly, and.... yadda yadda yadda.....

I posted an open letter to Skeptic on "SPEAKERS" suggesting he consider the Mackie HR824's connected with XLR cables. And what did I see at the bottom of that thread? Hotlinks to dealers selling XLR cables and Mackie HR824 speakers, but not at the best prices....

Deep Throat was right: Follow the Money

[musicoverall]

Do you spend $1300 on wires, or do you spend $1300 on a Jolida 302B plus a pair of Magnepan MMG? This is a simple question for me to answer.

If you try some exotic wires and you cannot hear any difference, why your system is simply not resolving enough! It CANNOT be that those wires made no difference, no sir! So the dealer can help you build a 'more resolving' system.... for $$$, of course!



Simple question, but it depends on if one already owns a good amp and speakers or not. Purchasing a Jolida 302B and Maggie MMG's would be a step backward for many people while spending $1300 to upgrade their cables might be a step forward.

A system that isn't resolving enough *might* be the problem if one cannot hear differences in wire. It could also be that their listening skills are lacking. And in many cases, the wires simply do not sound different in that application (system). I've found that to be the case many times.

Your advice about being careful around those with a financial stake in your purchase decision is good advice. But it's not enough. One must be careful when listening to someone with ANY kind of agenda. If it's to sell cables, or promote a website or to protect one's scientific credentials, it only goes to show that people should try for themselves those products about which they are curious.

So on the issue of cables, a prospective experimenter should ask himself some questions. Does the person recommending them (or vehemently NOT recommending them) have an agenda. Is he going to gain financially? Or is he perhaps afraid that someone might discover that the truth is different from what they believe? How badly does the recommender want or not want cables to affect the sound? Are they posting about their own experiences or lack of same?

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[hermanv]

Hi StevenSurprenant, I hadn't checked this catagory for a long time, thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid the whole cable war thing will drag on nearly forever. As an EE I have every reason to doubt the technical aspects of cable differences, as an audiophile I can not ignore what my ears tell me.

Take a cheap boom box, place it in different locations within a room, the sound quality changes. Now step up to a better system, to get the most out of that system, speaker placement becomes far more critical.

As the listener climbs up the sound quality curve, he soon learns that room treatments matter. It can be as simple as closing the drapes or as exotic as buying specialty products (corner traps, bass traps, absorbers, diffusers etc.). Many of these products can be home made or purchased at often exotic prices.

IMHO the whole price thing has little to do with ego or status, it's that the better audio products on the whole are more expensive.

As the determined listener continues to improve his system, two things tend to happen; 1. He gets better at hearing small changes and 2. as the system quality improves, ever smaller effects become discernable.

What I'm saying is that the differences between cables will not be heard with a boom box in a cement bunker, but as other components including the room improve, at some point cables will begin to make an audible difference.

It is unfortunate that the magazines on the whole resort to hyperbole when describing cable differences, "Wow, I never heard such a gigantic change". This isn't really true, but when all other attempts to improve the sound quality have reached a practical limit, it may seem like the cable change is huge. This is mainly due to the fact that all the other changes have stopped offering any useful additional improvement.

Some cables offer immediate and obvious differences, smear or muddling as opposed to hard or harsh seem common. Other cables have far more subtle effects, some take days of listening to many sources and kinds of music to reveal themselves. All this is made worse by another controversial subject called break in.

Double blind testing can be made valid. The problem is that in spite of wha the magazines say, most cable differences take some time to identify. This makes a usefull DBT so lengthy that many can't or won't bother. It is also my opinion that DBT tests can not be done by commitee, more than two listeners would make it nearly impossible to agree on what to listen to and for how long.

For me, hearing the difference between a good Kimber interconnect and a good Cardas interconnect is pretty tough, but hearing the differnece between either of these and a cheap Radio Shack interconnect is fairly easy.

The CD became popular because it sounded better than that old $99 record changer with ceramic cartridge we all used to have. Yet todays $25,000 vinyl playback systems sound better than a CD, all this proves is that good sound reproduction is a collection of subtleties.

[FLZapped]

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO.

Why?


I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching.


Why?



Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.

We're not talking a musical review, we're talking about discovering differences between two samples.

-Bruce

[musicoverall]

Because hearing doesn't work like vision (for me, anyway). Although I still think it would be interesting to show someone a picture of a large blue dot and then replace it with a picture of another, slightly different blue dot to determine how accurately they could tell the difference. I read once where there are 32 different shades of color in cigar tobacco wrappers. The ones who can determine them all are the cigar makers themselves and few others. Experience would seem to reign supreme. Subtlety does not mean non-existent.

Cable differences are subtle and my ears need time to get used to their sonic signature. Even so, I didn't score perfectly but I would have done less well with rapid switching. Unfortunately, the rapid switching so common in the area of testing audio components (not that I can find much evidence of testing!) will usually give the null result, thereby adding fuel to the objectivists fire that "it all sounds the same". Too bad. The question of whether cables can sound different has been answered. The two remaining questions are "why do they sound different" and "are the differences noticeable enough to matter to the listener".

[FLZapped]

(snip all that was totally irrelavent.)

Cable differences are subtle and my ears need time to get used to their sonic signature. Even so, I didn't score perfectly but I would have done less well with rapid switching.

How do you know?


Unfortunately, the rapid switching so common in the area of testing audio components (not that I can find much evidence of testing!) will usually give the null result, thereby adding fuel to the objectivists fire that "it all sounds the same".

Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

[Feanor]

How do you know?

Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

I'm not contradiction the need for long term listening; this is especially important form establishing which sound is "better" (or a least preferable). However my experience is also that anything I hear in the long term, I can also hear in the short.

But though the switching might be quick, pinpointing the specific differences can take a long time: e.g. once I spent 3 hours listening to segments no longer than 5 minutes and some as short as 20 seconds before I could articulate the differences; (granted, this was using the slower cable swapping method).

[musicoverall]

How do you know?



Sorry, but this is just not true, which is why there is so much testing using such a method. To make sure we are on the same page, when I say rapid switch, I mean two devices switched by a mechanical method - as opposed to someone plugging and unplugging cables.

I have also participated in numerous tests and I can assure you, the results were anything but null.....we weren't testing cables, but where there were differences, they stuck out like a sore thumb using rapid switching. Listening to each device seperately would have certainly yielded more nulls.

-Bruce

Are any of these tests published? Not necessarily the ones you've been involved with but any? I searched awhile back and couldn't really find much on the 'net. The few DBT's I found mostly showed null results and the ones that showed differences were the obvious ones (extremely long or thin guage cables, speakers, etc).

[musicoverall]

I'm not contradiction the need for long term listening; this is especially important form establishing which sound is "better" (or a least preferable). However my experience is also that anything I hear in the long term, I can also hear in the short.

But though the switching might be quick, pinpointing the specific differences can take a long time: e.g. once I spent 3 hours listening to segments no longer than 5 minutes and some as short as 20 seconds before I could articulate the differences; (granted, this was using the slower cable swapping method).

Not usually the case for me. When someone swaps a cable in my presence, they all immediately applaud the change while I'm sitting there in a fog until I have a chance to focus better.

Ahhh... I think we've found the culprit! It's not the test, it's my attention/focus! :D

I did notice that the differences I found sighted were the same ones I found blind but during the blind tests, the differences were much closer to negligible.

[Feanor]

Not usually the case for me. When someone swaps a cable in my presence, they all immediately applaud the change while I'm sitting there in a fog until I have a chance to focus better.

Ahhh... I think we've found the culprit! It's not the test, it's my attention/focus! :D

I did notice that the differences I found sighted were the same ones I found blind but during the blind tests, the differences were much closer to negligible.

Many supposed changes are inaudible to me; also, some I can just barely hear are irrelevant. This just isn't in the true, audiophile spirit. To the true audiophile all system changes make a difference, and all differences are significant. (These differences may be real or imagined, but that doesn't matter.)

But I can't be too judgemental. My hearing doesn't go beyond 10-11 kHz so others might hear what I do not.

[musicoverall]

Many supposed changes are inaudible to me; also, some I can just barely hear are irrelevant. This just isn't in the true, audiophile spirit. To the true audiophile all system changes make a difference, and all differences are significant. (These differences may be real or imagined, but that doesn't matter.)

But I can't be too judgemental. My hearing doesn't go beyond 10-11 kHz so others might hear what I do not.

No problem there. No one can possibly say what is or isn't audible for someone else, try as they might.

I've found even the significant differences need to be judged as to value. Some people have no problem spending $2000 for a very minor improvement (a significant change might also be minor in the overall context). That's ok with me but I prefer to spend the bulk of my disposable income on music.

[PeruvianSkies]

Great arguments indeed, but I think there is one thing that is being overlooked from both sides...tolerance.

1. Why do people who don't believe that there is a difference in cables care what other people do with their money and with their cables?

2. Why do people who know that they hear a difference in cables care what those who don't hear a difference think?

I have come to my own conclusions on cables and the bottom line for me is that they do make a difference, however, I have to point out a few things first...

Cables do not 'sound' a certain way, rather they 'allow' for either more, less, or neutral influence on the signal. What I mean is that a really good cable should only do 1 thing: accurately carry the signal successfully and with precision timing to the speaker or between components. If a cable is 'doing' anything to the signal other than that, as in ...manipulation, than it's not a good cable.

So good cables are more revealing of the original source...question is...how do we know? Well, that is where it takes a good ear and one that is knowledgeable on what a recording should sound like. This is an artform, a craft, a skill, something that takes time to train, just like tuning an instrument by ear. People with perfect-pitch (like myself) can hear a certain note and know what that note is and can tune an instrument or pick out a passage and identify the notes being played, this is through training and long-term listening.

[musicoverall]

I'd have to speculate on question #1 and, although I have ideas, I probably shouldn't post them.

As for question #2, I absolutely do not care what those who can't hear differences think. My concern is that a newbie might read them and decide not to try cables for themselves, thereby denying themselves a real improvement in the sound of recorded music in the home. Certainly people should have a healthy skepticism but the emphasis is on "healthy". The fact is that until you try some different cables - and pay attention! - you don't know if you can or can't hear the differences. If you can't, no problem.

Totally agree with your assessment on cables. They are not tone controls. The best ones I've heard simply allow the music to pass with the least amount of additives or deletions. I've heard very expensive cables that I thought were garbage, and not even as good as common zipcord. But those same cables inserted into a very expensive but "multi-colored" system improved the sound. Best to work with as neutral a system as you can get. When that is achieved, lousy cable makes its presence felt (heard) pretty clearly over long term listening in particular.

[hermanv]

I'm kind of impressed. I had not visited this forum for a while, too many entrenched positions, little real discussion. But in this thread there are some thoughtful responses and a noticable lack of name calling. Wow!

I continue to improve my system and listening room slowly; 1. because it's hard and 2. because I have limited financial resources. As my system improves the whole cable and wire thing seems to become more and more important. Before I was a dedicated WireWorld fan, but now I hear limitations in their product. I woud truly love to audition the insanely priced cables but I'm terrified that they might be better and common sense leads me to suspect that spending more for a cable than for a piece of equipment is sort of crazy.

Currently I'm running Cardas Golden Presence for interconnects and home made speaker cables: Cardas 9.5 AWG copper Litz for woofer and Cardas 5 nines silver (8 conductors 23 AWG each with Teflon sleeving) for mid/tweet with Cardas Rhodium lugs. I've gone to the Rhodium lugs because I found that contact cleaner really helped the sound and that the cheaper lugs needed a refresher treatment about every 60 days whereas the Rhodium stays clean closer to 6 months.

[fresh954]

Do you think you would pass a DBT when comparing regular DVD video to Blu ray quality video? It would only take me seconds to determine which one was the higher quality source.....Someone mentioned having "setup time to familiarize yourself with the sounds" hmmm....i dont buy it

[hermanv]

Do you think you would pass a DBT when comparing regular DVD video to Blu ray quality video? It would only take me seconds to determine which one was the higher quality source.....Someone mentioned having "setup time to familiarize yourself with the sounds" hmmm....i dont buy itI don't think the analogy is valid. With a TV image there are many things visible at once on different parts of the screen. Dark to light transistions both vertical and horizontal. Perhaps you might notice noise, but only in the black areas. In short thousands of information points are all visible all at once. While certain parts of an image may move, others are stable for seconds at a time, providing ample opportunity for close examination.

With audio there is level and time. You have to wait for a transient, you have to wait for a wood bodied instrument to hear harmonic overtones or the decay of notes. Wait for silent intervals or peak levels. These things take time and are of musical necessity short lived, maybe you don't notice the issue the first time. For me the more subtle differences often take several recordings to reveal themselves.

Like you I can spot the superior picture on a TV set almost instantly, with other than gross effects, I can't do this for audio.

[FLZapped]

That's the part that dooms audio DBT's, IMHO. I seriously doubt I would have passed mine using rapid switching. Most people need to listen long term - despite any comments of the "the new cable blew me away immediately" variety. At least that's what I have found.


Probably not, because the differences would have been obvious. Aural memory is extremely short.

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

Are any of these tests published? Not necessarily the ones you've been involved with but any? I searched awhile back and couldn't really find much on the 'net. The few DBT's I found mostly showed null results and the ones that showed differences were the obvious ones (extremely long or thin guage cables, speakers, etc).


A lot of what is published is through professional societies who charge a fee for copies of the results. You might be able to find someone who is a member and can get them as they have already paid their dues (membership fee :D )......

Null results are still results. Just that a relaible difference could not be found and as you say, the obvious one's show that the process works.

-Bruce

[Mash]

because, unless you are blind, you are seeing objects 'similar to' what you will see on a TV every day, i.e. you have real-life visual experiences that develop your reference for judging what you see on a TV.

An HD Plasma is 'richer' in its colors than is an HD LCD. An OPPO upscaling DVD player with the Faroudja DCDi chip can give a Blu-Ray player a real run for the money. Still, all will clearly (ahem) be visually better than a standard definition TV. Your real-life visual experiences make this an easy distinction for you to perceive.

Audio is different because many, perhaps most, audiophiles are too busy 'upgrading' and playing with their equipment changes to attend live recitals and concerts. Most audiophiles probably cannot hear when a group is recorded playing in a room with a too-low ceiling. But audiophiles are great at listening to price tags. More expensive is better, right?

Audio memory, like visual memory, is very long when it has been developed by listening to live acoustic music. Electric instruments, like stereo equipment and loudspeakers, do not seem to offer much long-term audio memory development.

I attended a Segovia concert in Cincinnati, Ohio c1965 where I sat in the front row center on the first balcony. I was out in free space, if you will. Segovia was magnficent. The next time I heard Segovia was in Hartford, CT c1985 where I again sat in the front row center on the first balcony. Two-thirds through the first half, between selections, I commented to my wife that "something did not sound right". After intermission, Segovia resumed play and after that first selection I commented to my wife that "This is what I remember from Cincinnati". What could have been amiss? The next day, the critic's review appeared in our newspaper wherein it was revealed that Segovia had been playing his brand new $80,000 Spanish guitar for the first half of the concert. That new guitar was reacting to the different humidity in Hartford. Segovia reverted to his 'old' guitar, which was his backup guitar, for the second half of the concert. So a REAL audio memory based upon listening to live acoustic instruments can last for 20 years!

And if you have developed your own REAL audio memory, you can easily compare a piece of audio gear to your REAL audio memory. Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is a waste of time.

I even bought a guitar made by one of Segovia's students. It is lovely to both look at and to listen to.... a far better use of money than buying expensive wires!

[hermanv]

<snip>
But audiophiles are great at listening to price tags. More expensive is better, right?
<snip>
This one pops up at every discussion about cables or amplifiers. Usually it's the "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" objectivists who bring it up. OK I'll bite, where is the supporting study that shows that this is true?

[Mash]

"This one pops up at every discussion about cables or amplifiers. Usually it's the "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" objectivists who bring it up. OK I'll bite, where is the supporting study that shows that this is true?"

At the least this seems rather defensive.

One example: I get emails from AudioAdvisor listing their latest bargains. One recent AudioAdvisor bargain was an upscaling DVD player featuring some rather fancy chips, including the Faroudja chip I had referred to, at 1/2 price- a mere $800. But I gave my daughter an OPPO player built with those same chips, including the Faroudja chip, for Christmas 2006 and it cost me $225, including a $40 three-foot HDMI cable. Now if both DVD players were built with the same innards, how can they perform differently? And how do you justify paying $1600 in 2006 for a player that is built the same way as the $225 player I bought in 2006? This is what I call listening to the price tag.

I have even read an exchange here between people sorely impressed with $3500 players.

There are only so many chips available for any manufacturer to pick from because chips are very expensive to develop. Developing your own chips to build your Wonderplayer is simply not practical. So you end up selecting from the same chips available to all other manufacturers. And some of those manufacturers are very price competitive, while others gouge for as much money as they can get because the higher-priced the gear, the better it must sound.... right?

The majority of consumers would seem to have little sense of value or real understanding of that which they spend their money on. This is why we now have the "subprime mortgage mess", because so many people accepted complicated varible/mixed loans they did not understand and could never repay, and then those loans were bundled up into security packaces which were sold to investors who did not understand what they were investing in. Now we have a real mess. Warren Buffet said things will get a lot worse than most people think, and I agree with him. Buckle your financial seatbelt.

I always made it my business to understand exactly what I was doing and why. This is why we are in excellent shape these days. I am retired and do what I want to do. We have three sound systems in this house, two full-tubie and one slightly-tubie. I will soon assemble a fourth slightly-tubie sound system. They all are accurate w/r/t live music but I feel only the full-tubie sets offer the proper subtle natural smoothness. And those Russian Winged-C power tubes are great!

[hermanv]

At $3,500 it is perfectly possible to build your own chips. Devices called DSP are generic arithmetic machines, they can be programmed to perform any arbitrary complex math function at amazing speeds. It is quite possible that they have done this. Actually this can be done at far lower prices, Custom DSP simpler chips can be made for $10.00 (not counting the software development investment). The old style custom IC's you mean are reserved for the high volume houses such as Sony or Mitsubishi.

From time to time there are indeed bargains, especially with any emerging technology where price has little to do with cost. I paid $1,000 for Toshiba's first progressive scan DVD player (there was nothing cheaper at the time), you can now buy better ones for less than $50. The examples you cite are for consumer products made at thousands per day. High end audiophile equipment does not enjoy these benefits of high volume.

You are merely parroting others misconceptions and arguing by analogy. Nothing you quote supports the notion that audiophiles are flocking to buy the more expensive DVD player due only to it's high price.

The Oppo is highly regarded in the audiophile review magazines as a great (and unusual) value for the buck, if the industry believed as you claim the Oppo wouldn't get the high marks. I think one audiophile magazine rated it product of the year.

[Mash]

It is nice to learn that the Oppo has been 'discovered'. I found it "on my own" in 2005, as it were. Perhaps audio/video gear price rationality may develop. Or maybe not.

You do seem to speculate about how the circuits of "high end" equipment come about and then you seem to view your speculation as a fact:
"At $3,500 it is perfectly possible to build your own chips. Devices called DSP are generic arithmetic machines, they can be programmed to perform any arbitrary complex math function at amazing speeds. It is quite possible that they have done this."

And it is ALSO quite possible that 'they' have NOT done this. Chips go well with beer & lemonade!

But why should we even care? I think you have chosen to ignore my original point:

"Audio memory, like visual memory, is very long when it has been developed by listening to live acoustic music. Electric instruments, like stereo equipment and loudspeakers, do not seem to offer much long-term audio memory development."

And.....
"I attended a Segovia concert in Cincinnati, Ohio c1965 where I sat in the front row center on the first balcony. .... Segovia was magnficent. The next time I heard Segovia was in Hartford, CT c1985 ....... Two-thirds through the first half, between selections, I commented to my wife that "something did not sound right". After intermission, Segovia resumed play and after that first selection I commented to my wife that "This is what I remember from Cincinnati". ....... The next day, the critic's review appeared in our newspaper wherein it was revealed that Segovia had been playing his brand new $80,000 Spanish guitar for the first half of the concert. That new guitar was reacting to the different humidity in Hartford. Segovia reverted to his 'old' guitar, which was his backup guitar, for the second half of the concert."

I Concluded with:
" So a REAL audio memory [of Segovia's playing, here] based upon [my] listening to [Segovia's] live acoustic instrument [Segovia's guitar, in concert in Cincinnati, in 1965] can last for 20 years!"

Finally
"And if you have developed your own REAL audio memory, you can easily compare a piece of audio gear to [i.e. evaluate its agreement with] your REAL audio memory. Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is a waste of time."

But YOU drag up the "DBT" argument and then claim that I am reiterating tired old arguments about DBT:
"This one pops up at every discussion about cables or amplifiers. Usually it's the "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist" objectivists who bring it up. "

You must have missed or simply ignored my comment: "Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is a waste of time."

I never made ANY comments about "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". Unless you consider using a well-honed audio memory of live music as the "measurement criteria" is then applying "if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist". Which would be a backdoor argument that everything is relative, buy what you "like" and next year buy all new stuff when you decide you "like something different". This gets expensive.

Comparing one piece of audio gear to another corresponding piece of audio gear is like trying to build something by comparing one piece of wood to another and then selecting the piece you prefer. Obviously it is better to use a tape measure and "measure twice and cut once". Here the tape measure is an analogy for having a REAL audio memory.

If YOU have attended enough concerts and recitals to know what REAL LIVE MUSIC sounds like, then all you have to do is make your system SOUND LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC. There is no need for DBT. And if a system were to sound LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC using RS Gold then there would be no need for, say, megabuck Cardas ... would there?

[hermanv]

<snip>
If YOU have attended enough concerts and recitals to know what REAL LIVE MUSIC sounds like, then all you have to do is make your system SOUND LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC. There is no need for DBT. And if a system were to sound LIKE REAL LIVE MUSIC using RS Gold then there would be no need for, say, megabuck Cardas ... would there?I singled out this point, because it seems to be the heart of your position.

1. I don' disagree, making it sound like live music is a valuable goal.
2. Live music sounds quite (and measurably) different to a member of the band than the guy in the back row (both may well have systems at home)
3. I've heard many systems, I've never walked into a house and been fooled into believing there was a live band playing in the other room.

So we disagree little on the goal, but we do disagree on how to get there. All systems are colored, listening to other systems helps identify which colors are important to you.

My main objection to a part your earlier post was this notion that audiophiles are fools who don't understand how to spend their money. Certainly some people are "glitz" conscious these same people may own a Ferrari and drive it like a Corrola. But they aren't representative of the whole.

A specialty industry exists that makes hideously expensive equipment and wires. It has existed for many years. I can't buy the notion that all or even many audiophiles are financial fools. Much of this equipment is expensive enough that well educated people will be the main customers. If most audiophiles aren't fools and they support this industry, the implication is that something valuable is going on.

That's what my ears tell me and that's why I was caught up in an upward equipment cost spiral. I tried reasonably priced name brands (NAD, Denon) they didn't sound as good as the audiophile systems I'd heard. I moved to Conrad Johnson - much better but their best stuff is vacuum tube based. I'm not that big a fan of wear out and tube "rolling", so now I have Levinson and Pass Labs. I use an Olive Musica as a CD server, but the sound is Levinson because that's how I decode the uncompressd digital files. It's not the best system I've heard, but it is fatigue free, musical and enjoyable with enough detail to hear the room where the music was recorded and little background noises that probably weren't supposed to be in the recording. When non audiophile friends stop to visit, some listen others just don't care. The ones that listen usually comment "wow, it's so clear".

Clarity without fatigue is a long way along the "sounds like live" path.

I don't tell people what to get, I tell them options abound. To go and listen and then decide.

[Mash]

is influenced by the title of this discussion:

"Speaker cable blind listening tests"

If your system is a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make any difference.

If your system is NOT AT ALL a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make any difference.

Wire listening tests are a waste of time. Expensive wires are a waste of money. I have enough EE background to know this. Wires only need to be sized appropriately. I spent some time managing some generator lines and overseeing the work of EE's & electrical designers simply because I was an ME with EE. I have even been able to troubleshoot a Futterman amp. Hint: watch where you put your fingers at all times or you may hear a very realistic version of the sound of angels.

Whether you sit in the orchestra or in the audience is beside the point. Even orchestra members are allowed to attend recitals.

I have been using tube gear since 1974. Retubing is not a big deal at all as long as you pay attention to the details. If you do NOT pay attention to the details, well, ......

And I can distinctly remember [actually if I close my eyes, I can still see it.....]
Mr. Futterman pulling one input tube out of MY powered-up Futterman amp and then inserting another input tube to demonstrate that one tube was faulty and the other tube was fine. One result of this activity was some really loud and ugly sounds from Mr. Futterman's loudspeaker. When I commented about the ill effects suggested by those really loud and foul speaker sounds, Mr. Futterman responded "Oh no, these speakers are very hardy". Well, the amp remained fine. Try a comparable trick with your SS gear.

I did buy a near-new C-J 10B from Gene Rubin on ebay for $600. It is quite nice. I also bought a "demo" ["demo", not demo] Jolida 302B two years back for $800. I replaced the Chinese EL34 tubes with matched Russian Winged-C tubes ($40/pair) and that Jolida smokes now. I think it will compete detail-wise with any SS amp. A Velodyne servo-15 brings up the bottom, so to speak.

I have had audiophiles stand with their mouths hanging open the very first time they listened to my Futterman-Maggie combo, and longer that the law allows.

As long as the Russians continue to produce their lovely-performing tubes I see no problems. This is all thanks to the Russian/Soviet use of tubed, instead of SS, electronics. The tubed stuff is heavier but it is also impervious to electromagnetic pulses.

[hermanv]

i
Wire listening tests are a waste of time. Expensive wires are a waste of money. I have enough EE background to know this. Wires only need to be sized appropriately. I spent some time managing some generator lines and overseeing the work of EE's & electrical designers simply because I was an ME with EE.
I am an EE, all my training agrees with you 100%, my ears tell me different.

I was very resistant to the notion of cables having "a sound". Clearly this was non-sense. An audiophile friend kept pushing me to try his Kimber 4TC. Mostly to please the friendship I took his pair home. I knew for certain I wasn't going to hear any difference during the test.

Oops, the Kimber cables removed a hash or edge form the sound, it was cleaner less fatiguing. The change was small but noticeable, a neighbor was visiting, he was curious about this notion, he, my wife and I all heard the same change.

I've never looked back, believe what you want, I could care less. Just allow other's to try for themselves.

[Mash]

And the members of each and every religion know, they absolutely know, that they and only they have true enlightenment. All non-members are heretics who will burn in Hell. How can this be?

The Islamists call the Americans in Iraq "Crusaders". Are the Islamists correct?

I point out the silliness of an audiophile viewpoint and someone will always claim "I heard it". Well, people have heard many things over the years, or at least they claimed they did. Son of Sam listened to his dog tell him to kill people. Should we believe, or not believe, Son of Sam?

The follow-on comment is usually, as here, "I've never looked back, believe what you want, I could care less. Just allow other's to try for themselves."

Well, tell me HOW to NOT "allow others to try for themselves"? This continues to remain, for me, a curious request.

It isn't my time or my money that you are spending fiddling with wires.... is it? But I sure as hell am not going to encourage someone else to waste their time or money. Encouraging other people, by whatever pursuasion, to waste their time or money is when the "problem" always occurs for me.

A fool & his money are soon parted. But you usually won't know you have been fooled until after your money is long gone! And you will never get it back.

I think I had it right before:

If your system is a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make any difference.

If your system is NOT AT ALL a close match to real live sound, using fancy or plain speaker wires won't make your system BECOME a close match to real live sound.

Soooooo.......... why bother? You know, this "hobby" USED to be called HiFi or High Fidelity, as in "High Fidelity to the Original". Not "Let's listen to a bunch of wires, or amplifiers, or whatever, and pick what we like best".

We use tape measures when we build something. We use a reliable map or GPS when we want to drive to an unfamiliar location. We don't use ad-hoc comparisons.

If you do not have a firm and reliable reference, then you will never know where you are.

[hermanv]

Are the Islamists correct?
And you accuse me of a certain defensive desperation?


Well, tell me HOW to NOT "allow others to try for themselves"? This continues to remain, for me, a curious request. You do it by posting exactly how you have.

I say "I hear", I say "other's hear", I say "try it". You say "You are a fool to fall for this stuff", don't bother because I've made up your mind for you. That's how to spread disinformation. Accuse people of an intellectual failure if they don't agree with you. Make them afraid to try, for fear that they would be accused of being a fool.


"Audio memory, like visual memory, is very long when it has been developed by listening to live acoustic music. Electric instruments, like stereo equipment and loudspeakers, do not seem to offer much long-term audio memory development."I let this go earlier, where did you find this gem? Since it was in quotes perhaps you could share the source?

Most audiophiles like music, they do go to live events. The one thing you will rarely find on this forum is equipment prices or costs. If that were the driving force, a game of one upsmanship would soon develop.

Many audio "tweaks" have not survived the market test of time, they were in fact debunked as "snake oil". On the other hand, cable companies are thriving. There are probably a hundred of them, many have survived years of selling their product. Since each needs to sell many cables to pay their bills, thousands or tens of thousands must have been sold by now. All those fools, who would have thought?

[StevenSurprenant]

I'll add my two cents here too...

hermanv said his system is very clear. How do you measure that?

A average system causes some instruments to sound congealed in the soundstage while a good system separates them so they sound distinct from one another. How do you measure that?

Many systems have very little or no depth to the soundstage while some good ones sound like the soundstage goes back to infinity. How do you measure that?

Some speakers make the sound come from the speaker plane or behind while others seem to extend out into the room to envelope the listener. How do you measure that?

Some speakers sound smooth while others sound hard. How do you measure that?

If you listen mostly to di-pole speakers, most box speakers sound boxy irregardless of price. People who don't have dipoles don't hear the boxiness. How can you prove to them that you hear it?

You can listen to speakers/amps that measure the same, but sound totally different. How do you put that into numbers?

I just bought a Trends T-amp and the improvement in clarity and separation was astounding. I never expected that from the measurements. I had to go on anecdotal information to make a decision to buy.

I spent years trying to explain soundstage to my friend and he never understood until he heard it for himself. Now it's one of the most important criteria in his life regarding audio.

The point is that there are many things in audio that cannot be measured. At least not yet. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

[Feanor]

...

I spent years trying to explain soundstage to my friend and he never understood until he heard it for himself. Now it's one of the most important criteria in his life regarding audio.

The point is that there are many things in audio that cannot be measured. At least not yet. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

There are things you hear that cannot be measured by any means we know know of. And I too am finally a subjectivist. But, and it's a big 'but', I'm skeptical subjectivist.

You hear "trust your ears" all the time (from subjectivists). Well I don't altogether trust my own ears. I'm not altogether confident that my perception isn't biased by expectation. I try to compensate for this by a combination of short, (as short as a few seconds), and long term listening, (hours of continuous listening over several days), before I come to any final conclusion.

Incidentally, 2/3 of the time my the first impression based on 10-15 minutes of listening is confirmed over the long term, but I never trust such first impressions. On the other hand if I'm not aware of any difference after listening causually for a few hours over a couple of days, I'm willing to conclude there is no difference of any significance. In the past when I've noticed no difference in causal listening, I have resorted to intense A/B comparisions and come to the conclusion that, yes, perhaps there is a tiny difference, a little bit less grain or whatever. Nowadays I deem this a complete waste of time (and potentially money).

Of course, it is almost completely useless to judge a component under anything but all-else-equal circumstances. And that means, for example, that you can't judge between speakers only in heard in different dealers' showrooms. Nor can you conclusively judge without listening to both components in the same system. And preferably at the same time: my own impressions are certainly affected by mode and my tiredness, etc.

[hermanv]

If it was easy, anyone could do it and these discussions wouldn't exist.

I too do both short and long term listening. The way I've been fooled is with interconnects where one brand seems to have more detail, but it turns out that the high end is hyped and in the long term it's uncomfortable to listen to them.

[Mash]

Gee, hermanv, you do seem to look for personal attacks in my posts where none exist. Why?

I never posted anything close to "You are a fool to fall for this stuff”
" Nope, never happened. Read through my post again. Slowly, after you take a deep breath. I did post that a fool & his money are soon parted. I did post that you will never get you money back if you are fooled. But this is not calling you a fool.

“….don't bother because I've made up your mind for you.” Nope… I never posted anything close to an attempt to “make up anybody’s mind”, either for you or for anybody else. Read again.

But you do seem incensed that I would dare to disagree with your viewpoint about wires and provide my discussion as to why. It would therefore seem that YOU wish to “make up MY mind for me” by “shouting me down”. Or do you merely wish to “make up”, or at least “significantly influence”, the mind of anyone else who “happens by here”?

Why is it so important to you that others should join you in your quest to pursue the holy grail of wire? Why are you not happy to quietly enjoy your private revelations about wires and let it go at that? Why do you need others to join you?

The profit margin in exotic wires is tremendous and similar to the profit margins in perfumes. This is how both industries can pay for fancy packaging that conveys the “substantial nature, importance, and desirability” of their product.

Some companies do survive a long time while others do not. But the survival of one company does not prove the superiority of that company’s product just as another company’s failure does not prove the inferiority of that company’s product. There are many other factors in the continuing success of a company, such as cost control, successful management transitions, and marketing.

You post that you are an EE, i.e. an Electrical Engineer. In what company, capacity and/or industry?

40 years experience in industry has allowed me to know MANY engineers of different disciplines. Some engineers were mechanical, some electrical, some manufacturing, and so on. Some were peers and others worked at my direction. Without a single exception, whenever I mentioned audiophiles spending big bucks on exotic wires and listening for the audible effects of those wires on their sound systems, every single engineer rolled his or her eyes.

Until you, an EE no less, came along. You are the very first engineer I have ever encountered who seems to advocate the “audible importance” of wire selection. Does this observation incense or offend you?

..... and I don't do measurements, folks. If I can hear Segovia in concert and I can then remember how Segovia "should" sound, after the passing of twenty years during which I did not hear him play even once, I do not need any stinking measurements.

[StevenSurprenant]

Until you, an EE no less, came along. You are the very first engineer I have ever encountered who seems to advocate the “audible importance” of wire selection.

No, he's not the first.

In my Internet travels, I have run across a few other EE's who felt the same.

Well anyway, this isn't going anywhere except down, so I'm bowing out.

Have a great day and a better tomorrow!

[hermanv]

I will stand by my posts on your discourse, I didn't cut and paste each item, but I do believe the essence of what you said was maintained.

SteveSupranant is correct we don't seem to be going anywhere, there is little reason to involve all the forum members in our disagreement. If you wish to continue the discussion feel free to email me directly.

I don't know where you are located, perhaps if we happen to live close by, we could arrange a listening session to each others systems? You are hardly the first to feel as you do (nor am I) it would benefit everyone to find some basis for agreement.

[Mash]

While I was reading a Fanfare Tuner instruction pamphlet in 1987, I found the admonition that an unbalanced RCA interconnect should not be any longer than twenty-five feet [25 ft]. I was curious about the consequences of such a long unbalanced interconnecting wire, so I assembled enough R/S Gold RCA interconnects plus some R/S Gold female-female couplers to assemble two twenty-six feet [26 ft] long interconnects. Now note that these 26 ft long daisy-chained interconnects had a LOT of pieces plugged into each other.

Then I used those 26 ft long interconnects to connect a Musical Fidelity CD player to the DeCoursey crossover that fed the Futterman amps (treble/midrange) and Gas Amp (bass) that drove the Tympanis and the Velodyne Servo-15 amp. The CD player provided a controlled signal source. I powered up everything and listened for the results.

Did the audiophile world, as we would like to know it, suddenly end? Heck, no.

Was there a “lot of grunge” from those 26 ft long interconnects? Heck, no.

What WAS the result of using those 26 ft daisy-chained interconnects?

The result of using those 26 ft long interconnects was a modest dulling of the treble, nothing more. I did not have to develop audiophile-ear hernias to hear that modest dulling of the treble. It was audible but still modest.

Conclusion: R/S Gold three foot [3 ft] interconnects would cause no audible problems.

Now I have read web posts by people who waxed eloquently about the joys of using expensive interconnects, and some did claim that they were EE’s. I had problems with their dissertations when I learned they were all employed in the expensive-interconnects industry. So I considered their viewpoints to be a classic conflict of interest.

As a contrast, the chief engineer at Macintosh Labs wrote a data-filled piece explaining the reasons for not spending on expensive wire. But maybe he wanted us to spend our money on Mac gear, rather that on wire?

Simply put:
You do not ask a fox to count your chickens.

I prefer the full-kimono approach: I want to know how everyone’s personal or financial interests relate to a decision before I even consider their opinions. Only the opinions of a truly disinterested third-party, who has NO hidden agendas, should ever be considered.

Since I have never been connected to the audio industry, I am truly a “disinterested third-party”.

I visit this site infrequently so I notice the continual changes in poster ID’s. There is a steady stream of “newbies” who are interested in audiophilia. But whenever these “newbies” discover they have been burned by buying overpriced wires and gear by snake oil salesmen and Carney hustlers, they switch to HDTV where they can SEE what they are getting for their money. They can also learn about HDTV in Consumer Reports. Our eyes dominate our ears, so HDTV renders the audio contribution of the HDTV experience to a very secondary position.

The audio hobby magazines have been disappearing because the people interested in audio have been disappearing.

This place was a lot better when people like Skeptic were around to challenge the BS posts and hidden agendas. I had some great catfights with Skeptic but they were in good fun. Skeptic’s intentions were at least honest.

[Mash]

And I am also curious as to why it seems so important that I should agree with you. Your posts suggest that you seem pleased with your "wire revelations", so why is it important that I should agree with you?

I really find this odd:

You fuss with expensive wires, but you avoid tube gear. To me, this is like swallowing elephants while choking on gnats.

For everyone:

I am curious how people can read my posts and then launch into their arguments with my posts by bringing in their “questions” about “how to do the measurements” in reference to my posts.

This is really very odd.

I “don’t do measurements”, folks, simply because I don’t HAVE to “do measurements”.

I find it a lot more pleasant to rely on live recitals and concerts.

[hermanv]

And I am also curious as to why it seems so important that I should agree with you. Your posts suggest that you seem pleased with your "wire revelations", so why is it important that I should agree with you?.I don't ask you to agree that wires have a sound, I ask you repeatedly to allow people to listen and then decide for themselves.


You post that you are an EE, i.e. an Electrical Engineer. In what company, capacity and/or industry?The innuendo is that I'm lying because I disagree with you? Out of school I worked for Gianinni Controls, my division designed TV studio monitors and monitors for NASA. Next Teledyne; Cameras for NASA and the AEC, In the early 70's I switched to telephony, designing mostly voice interfaces for telephones. I designed the analog voice circuits for all the FAA regional Air Traffic Control centers, currently retired, my last employer was Nokia. I do not now and never have worked for any "high end" audio industry.


Skeptic’s intentions were at least honest.Wow, you are some piece of work.

[Mash]

So I like to know whom I am dealing with. Nothing wrong with that. You are the one who engages in innuendo.

Re your "I don't ask you to agree that wires have a sound, I ask you repeatedly to allow people to listen and then decide for themselves."

If you are entitled to push wire theology, dude, then I am equally entitled to point out that wire theology is a waste of time.

Since I am neither in any position to prohibit any people from fiddling with their wires nor in the least motivated to do so if I could, your comment " I ask you repeatedly to allow people to listen and then decide for themselves." really makes no sense at all.

I retired from GE. I made it out the door with full benefits.

I had key parts of the GE90, which is still around.

I had aircooled generators for Power Gen. I sent the very first "generator kit" to a customer's site, with the full cooperation of GE Field Service people who would assemble it, because the bridges the generator had to traverse had load limits equal to slightly more than 1/2 the generator's assembled weight, never mind what the generator was carried on.

Putting generators into a country where the power grid frequency continually floats up and down is exciting.

I changed the oil vapor elimination system for an aircooled generator line because the oil vapor elimination system vendor was supplying butyl rubber sleeves when the spec clearly designated nitrile rubber sleeves, and then the vendor failed to respond to my phone calls when I had 200 customers with their generators down as a result of collapsed butyl rubber sleeves. So I had that vendor "designed out" and the cost of EACH oil vapor elimination system was thereby reduced $6000. We were selling 40 of those generators a year so we had a real cash savings of $240,000 a year. By now, those savings add up to $2,640,000.

I had numerous key responsibilities for the 9H & 7H steam cooled turbines, you know, the ones with steam cooled first and second stage turbine blades. The H units are way cool, and those turbines only weighed about 900,000 pounds. The operational units are running very well.

I also had a neat little simple-cycle 108MW unit that offered 50% efficiency. This jewel was designed as a powerplant intended to be built in 4 months instead of the standard two years. It turned out the first plant was actually built in three months.

Then there was that tunable propeller retention, and there were some other fun things, like the project where, in the process of redesigning the inside of a war machine I got to learn about kinetic energy guns and chobham armour. Fun stuff. There is lots more if I thought about it.

This debate is, I am afraid, much less important to me than completing the finishing touches on our new dock. I decided it was time for a dock upgrade when I was told that my new boatlift could be locked, which would prevent thieves from lowering the lift and stealing our bigblock speedboat. Maybe next I will spring for an even faster boat- who knows. It's "enjoy life now or never" time.

Have fun, herm, and stop being so uptight. Life is short enough. Unlax, dude.

[Mash]

You've had enough of this nonsense? OK.

I am sure your impressive last effort gave you great pleasure in your time well spent. A lot of time, I would guess. You state that we all have opinions, it is just that you seem unwilling to abide my opinions and the reasons I have arrived at them. But I should abide yours. Fair enough.

Unfortunately, opinions and/or results without the reasons and stories that built them are rather flat and uninteresting.

Well, do enjoy your hobby. Maybe it is best that we all agree with you in every detail, so that your life will be happier. [But I will still feel that I am entitled to disagree. Even if you feel that I am not entitled to disagree.]

So.... maybe this is best:

I agree with hermanv and StevenSurprenant in every way.

OK?

[StevenSurprenant]

You've had enough of this nonsense? OK.

I am sure your impressive last effort gave you great pleasure in your time well spent. A lot of time, I would guess. You state that we all have opinions, it is just that you seem unwilling to abide my opinions and the reasons I have arrived at them. But I should abide yours. Fair enough.

Unfortunately, opinions and/or results without the reasons and stories that built them are rather flat and uninteresting.

Well, do enjoy your hobby. Maybe it is best that we all agree with you in every detail, so that your life will be happier. [But I will still feel that I am entitled to disagree. Even if you feel that I am not entitled to disagree.]

So.... maybe this is best:

I agree with hermanv and StevenSurprenant in every way.

OK?


LOL!

I posted this before your last reply to Herman.

I'm glad it's over.

I love disagreement as long as it's constructive. That thread was not.

I think that at this point we should do the, "You da man" -- No, "You da man" thingy.

Actually I gave your posts some thought as to whether people would have a longer lasting audio memory of a live sound versus listening to an audio setup. It was intriguing.

In the end, I concluded that there was no difference as long as the interest level was at the same level during each event. Still made me think! So something good came from this.

No need to be condescending, I think we got over that.

Enjoy your retirement!

[Gab]

cables is my last priority because its too subtle , changing xo components makes more difference,

Personaly i think the best improvement, ( i would like to get feed back from people who tried this) is to solder properly all the cables, many connections vibrate with the current and the sound in the room making inducing waves in the sound: solder evrything and sound treatment to room and vibration isolation of components has a small impact on sound. Try solder ( do not blame me, i am not responsible for destroying your expensive furutech ) if you have cheap enough components only to not degrate , and listen to the high pitch sounds, there was a very nice difference when i tried it, but it can be only my imagination :)

[FLZapped]

So good cables are more revealing of the original source...question is...how do we know? Well, that is where it takes a good ear and one that is knowledgeable on what a recording should sound like. This is an artform, a craft, a skill, something that takes time to train, just like tuning an instrument by ear.

Sorry, but this has been shown not to hold up. There are any number of testing methodologies that are far and away superior to human hearing when it comes to finding differences between cables. And you CAN find them, but compared to test equipment sensitivity, they are almost always inaudible.



People with perfect-pitch (like myself) can hear a certain note and know what that note is and can tune an instrument or pick out a passage and identify the notes being played, this is through training and long-term listening.

Perfect pitch is different from hearing a broadband complex waveform and being able to tell it is different unless done under rigorous labaratory conditions. There are so many vaiables when listening to an acoustic source in an acoustic environment, that control is nearly non-existant in a casual setting, such as a home.

Long term listening won't work as a valid scientific method. Aural memory has been shown to be in the quarter-second range.


-Bruce

[FLZapped]

I personally believe that DBTs, as designed and conducted, are often flawed. For example, in my opinion, a short coming of many DBTs is that participants are not permitted the chance to familiarize themselves to their own satisfaction with the different sources in sighted listening before the test is beguns; another flaw would be that they cannot control how long they get to listen to each sound, and/or when the switch to the other (or possibly the same) sound is made. Regardless however, the only valid outcome for even the most rigorous test is, "The test revealed that the test subjects, under the test conditions, could/could not reliably distinguish between the sounds". Of course, remember that not all DBTs ever conducted have turned up negative results.

But to generalize regarding negative results, I ask, if you cannot distinguish different sounds under reasonable DBT conditions, how important can those differences really be???


Your reasoning is flawed. I can use pink noise as a test signal - how do you familiarize yourself with that?

Familiarization has nothing to do with finding differences, especially under switched conditions. The difference will be obvious at the switch, or it won't.

Further, DBTs don't give "negative results" - you either get a null - no difference could be detected, or that there was a difference detected, period.

If you want a different result, you'd have to switch to something along the lines of a Mean Objective Score type test.

-Bruce

[Mash]

Solder clamped multi-strand Cu wires with soft electronic solder before you clamp them? Absolutely! This is always better than clamping bare wires. A rather hostile poster attacked me for making the above point here in 1996 or 1997. [That exchange may be in the archives although these forums had a different appearance then.] Then a poster who had never posted before told us he had an electronics company and that this question was important to them, so he had one of his techs make two wired connections, one joint simply clamped bare multi-strand Cu wire and one clamped multi-strand Cu wires tinned with soft electronic solder . Then they tested the two joints, and the joint formed by clamping multi-strand Cu wires tinned with soft electronic solder was clearly superior. He scored the argument Mash - 1, XXXX - 0.

W/r/t electronics, one would hope the electronics are properly assembled and that no further soldering is needed. If remedial soldering makes any difference then something was originally amiss.

W/r/t the audibility of wires, this is a religeous discussion with ony two permissible results: If you should conduct a listening test and you hear a difference you are then one of the annointed; and if you conduct a listening test and you can not discern any differences, well, YOU simply have a problem. Spend mony on wires as you wish.... I suspect that many here will one day wish they still had the money they have spent on wires.....

[Gerard]

Mash, wrt to electronics, I dunno about the hi-end hand built type, but the mass produced automated production line stuff usually go through the reflow oven / liquid solder bath on a conveyor. There is no way of telling if each and every single component is well soldered on to the pcb here. Following which, the finished pcb goes to an automated tester, that powers up the unit under test (uut) which sits on a jig. Pins on this jig feedbacks voltage / data and if all is within manufacturer's tolerance, the pcb is encased ready for sale. You buy it and take it home, but will it give of it's best ? Usually not. Some components may not be well soldered, but electrons will still flow, and you won't know what you missed unless you compare it with an identical model, which had remedial solder job done for every single component. Point is, automation is never 100% perfect. You gotta live with it. Unless, if you are into DIY, but that's out of topic here.
Regards,
Gerard

[jneutron]

Solder clamped multi-strand Cu wires with soft electronic solder before you clamp them? Absolutely! This is always better than clamping bare wires.

Never, ever, pre-solder stranded wire just before using a compression connection.

Solder undergoes ductile creep. All stranded connections which were pre-soldered will loosen with time.


Then a poster who had never posted before told us he had an electronics company and that this question was important to them, so he had one of his techs make two wired connections, one joint simply clamped bare multi-strand Cu wire and one clamped multi-strand Cu wires tinned with soft electronic solder . Then they tested the two joints, and the joint formed by clamping multi-strand Cu wires tinned with soft electronic solder was clearly superior.

Initially, it will be. But in less than a year, all the product that poster produces will be falling from the sky (relatively speaking).

I have two pieces of equipment, each about 1.5 megabucks apiece, that were assembled using tinned stranded copper wire in guages from #22 to #16, and every 6 to 8 months I need to have an electrical tech tighten every single compression connection in the machine. Needless to say, I had to change the division's tech specifications to disallow pre-tinning.

Cheers, John
edit: By tinned, I mean actually filled with solder at the tip, not plating.

[Mash]

First, I would note that solder is a combination of lead and tin, and a higher percentage of lead produces a 'softer' solder. Ever since the first Henry had Forded Dearborn, auto batteries have featured lead binding posts to which heavy wires are attached using lead clamps tightened with a steel nut & bolt. This combination has worked splendidly for about a century now, except for some individuals who from time to time feel that if making the clamping bolt snug was ‘good’, tightening the bejabbers out of the clamping bolt was even better. But all that happened was that the lead clamp would relax (creep) into uselessness before their very eyes. The solution then was to simply replace the lead clamp.

Likewise, the cast iron brake rotors on your car can be ruined if the wheel lug nuts are over tightened with an impact wrench by hasty “tire jockeys”, instead of the wheel lug nuts being properly tightened with a torque wrench set to the proper torque. The combination of excessive clamping tension on the rotor from the wheel lug nut studs combined with the heat generated during braking causes the cast iron rotor to creep and distort. The result is a poorly functioning brake, which can only be repaired by replacing the distorted brake rotor.

My point is that if you apply enough pressure or tension combined with enough temperature you can make any metal creep, and creep is non-conservative, i.e. it is irreversible.

This leads me to think that your techs were over-tightening those tinned wire compression joints. There could be other or additional root causes but excessive tightening is where I would start.

I believe your key question would be: Could the use of non-tinned Cu wire allow the formation of oxides on the Cu wire which then could then render those wire connections unreliable? This could be an even bigger problem, I would think, than the need to retighten some connections.

[jneutron]

My point is that if you apply enough pressure or tension combined with enough temperature you can make any metal creep, and creep is non-conservative, i.e. it is irreversible.

This leads me to think that your techs were over-tightening those tinned wire compression joints. There could be other or additional root causes but excessive tightening is where I would start.

Long term failure of pre-tinned stranded copper compression connections is independent of the initial torque. Solder creeps when subjected to compressive forces which are sufficient for a proper electrical connection. This occurred even when torque wrenches were used. Any compression joint which is tight enough to stop the tech from being able to slip the wire out, will loosen with time.

For a little while, I thought it was temp cycling of the environment, as the temp would swing from a low of 65 to a high of 85. But it turned out not to correlate with temp swings.

My workplace is not the first place to experience this. Nor will it be the last, as long as there are those who worry only about the initial contact resistivity, and not about long term reliability.


I believe your key question would be: Could the use of non-tinned Cu wire allow the formation of oxides on the Cu wire which then could then render those wire connections unreliable? This could be an even bigger problem, I would think, than the need to retighten some connections.

Oxide formation of a good compression joint is not a concern. There are thousands of such joints in every house on the planet. It is sanctioned by the NEC in the USA.

Cheers, John

[hermanv]

I crimp, then solder. Belt and suspenders.

The problem with "gas tight" crimp joints is that machines do a pretty good job of this, but the old squeeze it pliers aren't worth much. Worst of all are those pliers stamped from a flat heavy gauge sheet metal. You know the one's, they have cast plastic handles, they cut threaded screws, strip wire and cut-off wire, doing all jobs badly.

If you must crimp at home, go get one of the cast pliers designed only for crimping. Or buy the crimping tools recommended by the terminal manufacturer, hint, it won't be $1.95

[hermanv]

Aural memory has been shown to be in the quarter-second range.
-BruceStatements like this, don't help. Without further explanation it simply can't be true. If it were true one would for example, forget how a violin sounds different from a trumpet, I have no trouble identifying one over the other even with long periods of not hearing either one. A much more complex definition is required for this statement to stand.

The cable argument is complex, one reason the debate rages on for years. Trying to reduce it to a series of sound bytes (ugh, bad pun) won't bring the parties closer together. I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening. Thousands of audiophiles have spent small fortunes on cables, mass delusion seems like an unlikely explanation.

While it is true that the desire to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money will color subjective judgment, it is equally true that the desire not to hear a change colors the skeptics hearing in an identical if opposite way.

[musicoverall]

I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening.

As I've said before, the debate as to whether cables can sound different from another no longer interests me, as it's been resolved. The debate as to WHY cables can sound different IS of interest to me. On the one hand, psychology and mass delusion are invalid, and on the other hand "because measurements don't tell all there is to know about cable sonics" is incomplete. I'd like to know the reasons different cables cause the sound of an audio system to change.

I feel compelled to also state that I know of absolutely no one... zero, nada zilch, NO ONE... that feels obligated to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money on cables. If there are people that spend money on something without a fairly stringent audition, they probably deserve what they get... or don't get. The people I know and all the tales I've heard or read show that those hearing the differences hear 'em first and then buy.

[Feanor]

As I've said before, the debate as to whether cables can sound different from another no longer interests me, as it's been resolved. The debate as to WHY cables can sound different IS of interest to me. On the one hand, psychology and mass delusion are invalid, and on the other hand "because measurements don't tell all there is to know about cable sonics" is incomplete. I'd like to know the reasons different cables cause the sound of an audio system to change.

I feel compelled to also state that I know of absolutely no one... zero, nada zilch, NO ONE... that feels obligated to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money on cables. If there are people that spend money on something without a fairly stringent audition, they probably deserve what they get... or don't get. The people I know and all the tales I've heard or read show that those hearing the differences hear 'em first and then buy.

A few personal observation from The Elf ...

Cables do measure differently therefore there is objective reason to believe that they might sound different.
Almost every cable maker has some kind of theory of why their cables are better. Which of the totally different technologies and explanations are right?
The placebo effect is scientifically accepted. No doubt it can apply before or after you spend your money.

[musicoverall]

A few personal observation from The Elf ...

Cables do measure differently therefore there is objective reason to believe that they might sound different.
Almost every cable maker has some kind of theory of why their cables are better. Which of the totally different technologies and explanations are right?
The placebo effect is scientifically accepted. No doubt it can apply before or after you spend your money.

1) Yes, but so far all I've heard is that those measurement difference are below the threshold of audibility... with a few exceptions such as length, high capacitance in phono cables and the like.
2) I'd have to speculate but my guess is zero; hence, the problem.
3) Indeed. But if one does a proper audition, it is unlikely to occur after the sale. I have no doubt placebo takes over after a sale if the buyer doesn't do their due diligence in the beginning. In those cases, placebo is hardly their biggest problem!

The last time I checked in with you, you were running what is certainly one of the nicest theoretical (by my experience) non-stratospherically priced audio systems around. In fact, I recently recommended that someone audition your system, with a different power amp since the Monarchies are hard to find. How's it going? Still getting great sound?

[Feanor]

1) Yes, but so far all I've heard is that those measurement difference are below the threshold of audibility... with a few exceptions such as length, high capacitance in phono cables and the like.
2) I'd have to speculate but my guess is zero; hence, the problem.
3) Indeed. But if one does a proper audition, it is unlikely to occur after the sale. I have no doubt placebo takes over after a sale if the buyer doesn't do their due diligence in the beginning. In those cases, placebo is hardly their biggest problem!

The last time I checked in with you, you were running what is certainly one of the nicest theoretical (by my experience) non-stratospherically priced audio systems around. In fact, I recently recommended that someone audition your system, with a different power amp since the Monarchies are hard to find. How's it going? Still getting great sound?

MOA,

I agree that audition before purchase is essential, most of all for components such as cables where the effect (if any ;) ) is likely to be small. If a dealer recommended expensive cables to me without the priviledge to try them at home before purchasing, I'd consider him a crook.

I hope you're talking about my current system, details of which are up-do-date at the link below.

I don't think the Monarchys are particularly hard to find. Often they can be bought direct from Monarchy Audio at a substantial discount from MSRP; (supposedly they are "used", refurbs, or whatever). Check out Audiogon.

What I would really like to try at this point is different DAC. I love to try a Monarchy NM24 or an Audio Note. I'm awaiting the arrival of an M-Audio Revolution 7.1 (http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/Revolution71-main.html) PCI sound card to try in place of my M-Audio Audiophile USB.

[E-Stat]

Statements like this, don't help. Without further explanation it simply can't be true. If it were true one would for example, forget how a violin sounds different from a trumpet, I have no trouble identifying one over the other even with long periods of not hearing either one.
Funny, that goes the same for me, too. :)


I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening. Thousands of audiophiles have spent small fortunes on cables, mass delusion seems like an unlikely explanation.
And you will never hear anyone say this:

"Today, I spent several hours comparing zip cord to Nordost Valhalla and honestly couldn't tell the difference"

Experience typically yields different results than speculation.


While it is true that the desire to hear an improvement after spending a lot of money will color subjective judgment, it is equally true that the desire not to hear a change colors the skeptics hearing in an identical if opposite way.
Absolutely. I don't buy expensive audio anything until I've heard it extensively (with cables that means in my systems).

rw

[Feanor]

....

The cable argument is complex, one reason the debate rages on for years. Trying to reduce it to a series of sound bytes (ugh, bad pun) won't bring the parties closer together. I'm reasonably sure that both parties to the argument want to understand what is happening. Thousands of audiophiles have spent small fortunes on cables, mass delusion seems like an unlikely explanation.

...

One religion is much like another in that regard. :(

[hermanv]

One religion is much like another in that regard. :(There are a large number of audiophile "tweaks" that have not stood he test of time. Mass delusion would work the same for any of these as it would for cables, yet they're gone from the marketplace.

While the following all do have their adherent's; CD demagnetizers, disk stabilizers, green felt pens and little wooden blocks most audiophiles have rejected them as not worthwhile. Cables continue to be purchased, reviewed and improved for a couple of decades now. This is no guarantee that they work, it is merely anecdotal evidence. It helps the cables count argument, that the electronic engineer designers of premier electronic audiophile equipment are supportive of the notion. Or are we still debating if one piece of electronics sounds the same as all other pieces?

[musicoverall]

And you will never hear anyone say this:

"Today, I spent several hours comparing zip cord to Nordost Valhalla and honestly couldn't tell the difference"

Experience typically yields different results than speculation.

rw

Absolutely. The naysayers compare different brands of zipcord and proclaim that all wires sound the same. If ineed these folks are the scientists they proclaim themselves to be, I sincerely hope they don't operate at their vocations in the same slipshod manner. I've always believed that an objective test is one in which the person testing does NOT tailor the test to back up their own beliefs and biases.

[musicoverall]

MOA,
I agree that audition before purchase is essential, most of all for components such as cables where the effect (if any ;) ) is likely to be small.

No argument. I've yet to hear a system that was dramatically changed by cables. Such a system would surely be flawed somewhere in the chain. Absolutely we should upgrade where it makes the most sense and gives the greatest return. Eventually, though, that point is often the cables where a $5000 speaker upgrade is not as cost effective as a $200 cable upgrade... or sometimes even a lower cost cable does the trick.

[Feanor]

.... Or are we still debating if one piece of electronics sounds the same as all other pieces?

No, equipment doesn't all sound the same, at least to my ear.

It was just a cynical remark connecting mass delusion with religion. Mass delusion does happen.

[O'Shag]

I'm as guilty as most for being suckered in to expensive cables. Cables can and do sound different. The question is, how much of a difference? The answer is; not much. Audiophiles, or middle-aged men with nothing better to do, are a perfect target as the sucker brigade. I have spent probably $6k on cables for my system, and quite frankly, I now have realized or admitted to myself that it was an utterly stupid waste of money. This level of crackpottery puts us, as a consumer group, way out on the lunatic fringe. As always, the sensible and right approach is to pick the middle ground. You can by a pair of interconnects for $150-$250 that will sound as good as any $7,500 interconnect. If there are any differences they will be small and you will have to listen hard for them. The sucker will spend the $7,500. The smart one will buy the $150-$250 interconnects. If you want to spend lots on audio, then at least spend it on components and speakers where there is a modecum of cost to value ratio.

I have a pair of speakers that I have yet to hear bested (in fact they've bested most everything I've heard, and I've heard many of the best). They are wired throughout with professional studio-grade ultra pure oxygen free copper - not silver (although siver is reputed to be the best conductor) or some other weird hyper-expensive alloy. In any concert you've attended, ever, they use sensible tour-grade UPOFC for their cabling. Have you ever heard JBL Hartsfields or 4350 studio monitors?. These are detail machines. As compared to the ultra pure copper cables of today, they use what could be considered lamp cord. In other words, all this hyper-expensive esoteric stuff (and nonsense) is un-neccessary to acheive high performance and if you think otherwise, then you must know something the best sound engineers in the world don't. Unless you want to burn money, don't throw it away on hyper-expensive cables.

[E-Stat]

You can by a pair of interconnects for $150 that will sound as good as any $7,500 interconnect. If there are any differences they will be small and you will have to listen hard for them
I'll vote for the second statement's correction to the first. Diminishing returns is found with all sorts of goods. The carbon fiber brake option for the Ferrari Modena runs slightly over $20k. Don't the standard Brembos stop well enough? Not for some.


In any concert you've attended, ever, they use sensible tour-grade UPOFC for their cabling. All this hyper expensive stuff is un-neccessary and if you think otherwise, then you must know something the best sound engineers in the world don't.
Two comments. Actually, as for the concerts I go to most frequently, they don't use any cabling. For that matter, they don't use microphones, mixers, compressors, limiters, reverbs, fuzz boxes, exciters, maximizers, equalizers, crossovers, faders, sliders, amplifiers or speakers either. I hear the musicians playing their instruments. As for those involving sound reinforcement, I have yet to hear any one, including big budget gigs like Madonna's, that don't sound simply dreadful.

rw

[hermanv]

I'm as guilty as most for being suckered in to expensive cables. Cables can and do sound different. The question is, how much of a difference? The answer is; not much. Audiophiles, or middle-aged men with nothing better to do, are a perfect target as the sucker brigade. I have spent probably $6k on cables for my system, and quite frankly, I now have realized or admitted to myself that it was an utterly stupid waste of money. This level of crackpottery puts us, as a consumer group, way out on the lunatic fringe. As always, the sensible and right approach is to pick the middle ground. You can by a pair of interconnects for $150-$250 that will sound as good as any $7,500 interconnect. If there are any differences they will be small and you will have to listen hard for them. The sucker will spend the $7,500. The smart one will buy the $150-$250 interconnects. If you want to spend lots on audio, then at least spend it on components and speakers where there is a modecum of cost to value ratio..The diminishing returns equation is hard at work here. I personally would add that money to the electronics (if I had that kind of money). Still if one is fabulously wealthy, who's to say where your money should go. Still I agree, $7,000 is straining credulity.


I have a pair of speakers that I have yet to hear bested (in fact they've bested most everything I've heard, and I've heard many of the best). They are wired throughout with professional studio-grade ultra pure oxygen free copper - not silver (although siver is reputed to be the best conductor) or some other weird hyper-expensive alloy. In any concert you've attended, ever, they use sensible tour-grade UPOFC for their cabling. Have you ever heard JBL Hartsfields or 4350 studio monitors?. These are detail machines. As compared to the ultra pure copper cables of today, they use what could be considered lamp cord. In other words, all this hyper-expensive esoteric stuff (and nonsense) is un-neccessary to acheive high performance and if you think otherwise, then you must know something the best sound engineers in the world don't. Unless you want to burn money, don't throw it away on hyper-expensive cables.Professional audio speakers aren't that good, most are made to cover a small frequency range that is optimized for a given instrument (guitar or bass amp speakers for example). Others are designed mainly to play very loud. I have met people who though they must be good speakers, but most are peaky (not flat vs frequency). You said it, some are detail machines others are bass pumps, not even a pretense at accurate. They can usually play loud with little compression, but probably will have quite poor dynamic range. Normally professional speakers are used in banks of many, often different speakers with many cables, nothing like a right/left pair for home stereo. Now about professional cables, they tend to be very long and designed to be handled by gorillas (otherwise known as stage hands). Expensive wire makes little sense in that application.

There are recording studios do in fact use exotic wires, both speaker and interconnect.

[E-Stat]

Still I agree, $7,000 is straining credulity.
Absolutely, yet I have an audio reviewer friend who is currently listening to the Nordost Odin cables which fall into that ridiculous price range. He claims there is a difference, but it is hard to imagine how they are better than the already excellent Valhallas. The perfect match for your $400k system!

rw

[Feanor]

I'm as guilty as most for being suckered in to expensive cables. Cables can and do sound different. The question is, how much of a difference? The answer is; not much. Audiophiles, or middle-aged men with nothing better to do, are a perfect target as the sucker brigade. I have spent probably $6k on cables for my system, and quite frankly, I now have realized or admitted to myself that it was an utterly stupid waste of money. This level of crackpottery puts us, as a consumer group, way out on the lunatic fringe. As always, the sensible and right approach is to pick the middle ground. You can by a pair of interconnects for $150-$250 that will sound as good as any $7,500 interconnect. If there are any differences they will be small and you will have to listen hard for them. The sucker will spend the $7,500. The smart one will buy the $150-$250 interconnects. If you want to spend lots on audio, then at least spend it on components and speakers where there is a modecum of cost to value ratio.

I have a pair of speakers that I have yet to hear bested (in fact they've bested most everything I've heard, and I've heard many of the best). They are wired throughout with professional studio-grade ultra pure oxygen free copper - not silver (although siver is reputed to be the best conductor) or some other weird hyper-expensive alloy. In any concert you've attended, ever, they use sensible tour-grade UPOFC for their cabling. Have you ever heard JBL Hartsfields or 4350 studio monitors?. These are detail machines. As compared to the ultra pure copper cables of today, they use what could be considered lamp cord. In other words, all this hyper-expensive esoteric stuff (and nonsense) is un-neccessary to acheive high performance and if you think otherwise, then you must know something the best sound engineers in the world don't. Unless you want to burn money, don't throw it away on hyper-expensive cables.

I definitely agree that cable and (especially) interconnect differences are small. Granted, for a poor person like me, $150-$250 interconnects are on the high end my scale. (My mid-range is Blue Jeans and my low-end are Parts Express house brand.)

On the other hand $7500 is mid-range for some people. One can spend upwards of $35,000 for, say, Transparent Opus (http://www.transparentcable.com/news/content/ref-mm_joins_audio.html) speaker cables. You've got to be crazy-rich to justify that.