Can we categorize exotic cables as luxury rather than necessity?

[Tony_Montana]

Looking at cable as a part of a bigger picture of human-nature....

Humans tend to purchase products/commodities equal to their purchasing power. For example, a rich person will buy a Mercedes rather than a Buick, or Rollex instead of Timex. Mind you that Buick or Timex will do the same function as their expensive counterpart (or may be better), but Rollex and Mercedes does it with style and feel good.

Can we apply the same logic to expensive or exotic cables? If one owns expensive components and speakers, would they want to have 0.30 cent a foot zip cord (that have HomeDepot logo on it :D) hanging from back of their $3,000 speakers, or $10 Radio shack IC from $5,000 amplifier?

There is a fierce commitment going on at some other audio board (which I am not going to mention) to rationalize use of exotic/expensive cables, but at the end, it all might come down to cosmetic rather than functionality if we include the human factor.

[Sealed]

Value and common sense are not virtues of those with the money to buy such cables.

NBS has a chart on thier site. If You have "X" dollars in a system, the cables MUST cost "X" amount. I mean something to the tune of, If your system costs $25k you MUST spend $5k+ on cables...and it gets worse.

I read the guy from "Empire audio" said "Interconnects don't even sound good under $500 a pair"

Expensive cables are not just overkill, they are an ego-placating device. It's like a genital compensation. Your own isn't thick enough, so you buy a substitute to brag about...that kind of thing.

There is only so much a cable can compensate for, and once you go past a certain price I am convinced the cable is a psychological crutch more than a true audio boon.

Again, those that can afford it don't care one way or another. It's just those that feel that is necessary that kind of creep me out.

"Explain again why you need a $20,000 piece of WIRE?" :confused:

[mtrycraft]

"Explain again why you need a $20,000 piece of WIRE?" :confused:

Some like to connect their Rolex between audio components :)

[okiemax]

Looking at cable as a part of a bigger picture of human-nature....

Humans tend to purchase products/commodities equal to their purchasing power. For example, a rich person will buy a Mercedes rather than a Buick, or Rollex instead of Timex. Mind you that Buick or Timex will do the same function as their expensive counterpart (or may be better), but Rollex and Mercedes does it with style and feel good.

Can we apply the same logic to expensive or exotic cables? If one owns expensive components and speakers, would they want to have 0.30 cent a foot zip cord (that have HomeDepot logo on it :D) hanging from back of their $3,000 speakers, or $10 Radio shack IC from $5,000 amplifier?

There is a fierce commitment going on at some other audio board (which I am not going to mention) to rationalize use of exotic/expensive cables, but at the end, it all might come down to cosmetic rather than functionality if we include the human factor.

Are audiophile cables a luxury rather than a necessity? I would say so. It's hard for me to imagine someone seriously saying "I just can't live without those cables." Come to think of it, I can't imagine someone seriously saying " Without hifi, I die."

Tony, can you be more specific about what you mean by "expensive or exotic cables?" I suspect some forum members think there are only two price categories (expensive and inexpensive), but others may not agree since cables are offered at many price levels. If you want to discuss why people buy expensive cables, it would be helpful to explain what you mean by "expensive."

[skeptic]

I would categorize it as stupidity, at least the purchase of them. The sale of them on the other hand is a stroke of genius as it exploits the human nature of those with much more money than their knowledge warrants them to be responsible for handling. If a professional audio engineer were to purchase these cable for a client using the client's money, he might lose his job. His boss would tell him that we don't treat our customer's money recklessly. On the other hand, there is no one to stop the hobbyist or consumer from spending his money on things that don't work any better than much cheaper items. Among those who buy multi thousand dollar appliances for their kitchens, an Italian made range hood costing $6000 was quite the rage. However, it works no better than my $200 GE. A recent Consumer's Reports (March 2004) published tests showing that multi thousand dollar stainless steel stoves built to withstand 100 years of abuse in a commercial kitchen not only didn't cook any better than the best consumer models selling for $1000 or less, in most cases, they didn't perform nearly as well and some brands weren't very reliable. But if you want your kitchen to gleam with stainless steel like the back room of a well scrubbed diner or you want fat fancy looking wires to look at behind your stereo system, go right ahead. There are plenty of people out there just too eager to take your money. Me, I save my exotic cable money for other things, like cruises.

[Chas Underhay]

I would categorize it as stupidity, at least the purchase of them. The sale of them on the other hand is a stroke of genius as it exploits the human nature of those with much more money than their knowledge warrants them to be responsible for handling. If a professional audio engineer were to purchase these cable for a client using the client's money, he might lose his job. His boss would tell him that we don't treat our customer's money recklessly. On the other hand, there is no one to stop the hobbyist or consumer from spending his money on things that don't work any better than much cheaper items. Among those who buy multi thousand dollar appliances for their kitchens, an Italian made range hood costing $6000 was quite the rage. However, it works no better than my $200 GE. A recent Consumer's Reports (March 2004) published tests showing that multi thousand dollar stainless steel stoves built to withstand 100 years of abuse in a commercial kitchen not only didn't cook any better than the best consumer models selling for $1000 or less, in most cases, they didn't perform nearly as well and some brands weren't very reliable. But if you want your kitchen to gleam with stainless steel like the back room of a well scrubbed diner or you want fat fancy looking wires to look at behind your stereo system, go right ahead. There are plenty of people out there just too eager to take your money. Me, I save my exotic cable money for other things, like cruises.

Mr Skeptic is right here, the main quality a professional audio engineer will require of his cables is robustness, connectors that will withstand years of use and abuse and cables that will withstand being walked over time and time again. Thats the only reason why their cable outer casings are thick, to provide protection to the thin conductors.

So no matter what exotic bull$hit cables you use in your domestic hi fi system, dont forget that the music was originally recorded using yards and yards of ordinary, honest "working man's" cable.

[rb122]

" It's like a genital compensation. Your own isn't thick enough, so you buy a substitute to brag about...that kind of thing."


So THAT'S why my wife ran screaming from the room when I bought that braided Kimber Kable! It was either the braiding or the spade connectors, I guess.

The original post is nothing more than yet another in a long series of whether expensive cables make a performance difference. Certainly most of the posters on A/R will see these cables as a luxury while our chums over at A/A will see them as a necessity. Does that sum it up?

[okiemax]

I would categorize it as stupidity, at least the purchase of them. The sale of them on the other hand is a stroke of genius as it exploits the human nature of those with much more money than their knowledge warrants them to be responsible for handling. If a professional audio engineer were to purchase these cable for a client using the client's money, he might lose his job. His boss would tell him that we don't treat our customer's money recklessly. On the other hand, there is no one to stop the hobbyist or consumer from spending his money on things that don't work any better than much cheaper items. Among those who buy multi thousand dollar appliances for their kitchens, an Italian made range hood costing $6000 was quite the rage. However, it works no better than my $200 GE. A recent Consumer's Reports (March 2004) published tests showing that multi thousand dollar stainless steel stoves built to withstand 100 years of abuse in a commercial kitchen not only didn't cook any better than the best consumer models selling for $1000 or less, in most cases, they didn't perform nearly as well and some brands weren't very reliable. But if you want your kitchen to gleam with stainless steel like the back room of a well scrubbed diner or you want fat fancy looking wires to look at behind your stereo system, go right ahead. There are plenty of people out there just too eager to take your money. Me, I save my exotic cable money for other things, like cruises.

Only a dummy would spend $2,000 on a cruise instead of using the money to buy an exotic cable. All kinds of terrible things can happen on a cruise ship. I recall shocking headlines like "HUNDREDS SICK AFTER CRUISE" and "SHARK DEVOURS VACATIONER" and "YOU CAN GET STD's ON A BOAT" and "FUN IN SUN CAUSES CANCER." So what do you have to show for your foolishness after you get home? Nothing, except possibly a hangover. But your exotic cable would still be worth something. After having fun with it, you could sell it and buy another maybe even more exotic cable. There is no end to the fun you can have. And it's CLEAN, SAFE FUN!

[Rockwell]

Only a dummy would spend $2,000 on a cruise instead of using the money to buy an exotic cable. All kinds of terrible things can happen on a cruise ship. I recall shocking headlines like "HUNDREDS SICK AFTER CRUISE" and "SHARK DEVOURS VACATIONER" and "YOU CAN GET STD's ON A BOAT" and "FUN IN SUN CAUSES CANCER." So what do you have to show for your foolishness after you get home? Nothing, except possibly a hangover. But your exotic cable would still be worth something. After having fun with it, you could sell it and buy another maybe even more exotic cable. There is no end to the fun you can have. And it's CLEAN, SAFE FUN!

Unless you use it for someting other than it's intended purpose ;) , there is no fun to be had with a cable.

[okiemax]

Unless you use it for someting other than it's intended purpose ;) , there is no fun to be had with a cable.

Oh yeh! Listening to lots of cables is more fun than you can imagine. I have never tried using a cable for other than it's intended purpose, so I will take your word for it. On second thought, I demand you support your claim with double-blind testing.

[Rockwell]

Oh yeh! Listening to lots of cables is more fun than you can imagine. I have never tried using a cable for other than it's intended purpose, so I will take your word for it. On second thought, I demand you support your claim with double-blind testing.

Well, blindfolds were involved...oh...I shouldn't say more :D

[E-Stat]

For example, a rich person will buy a Mercedes rather than a Buick, or Rollex instead of Timex. Mind you that Buick or Timex will do the same function as their expensive counterpart (or may be better), but Rollex and Mercedes does it with style and feel good.
Actually, you have two different situations here. My $69 Casio Waveceptor Atomic watch is more accurate than either my wife's Rolex or my Omega Speedmaster. The Swiss watches which were once standards of accuracy are now just nice pieces of jewelry that serve as timepieces.

The car analogy, however, is different. At least for those with the appropriate driving skills. While a Buick and a Mercedes both drive down the street, there are definitely differences in their performance envelope, not all aspects of which you can quantify. How do you measure the linearity and road feel in steering systems anyway? My elderly mother always liked her LeSabre and never "got" driving a friend's Mercedes. Nor my Acura TL. Her driving demands were quite modest. As for me, I rather like taking freeway ramps at .85 Gs where possible. Her LeSabre would understeer into the wall at that speed. Indeed, most folks are simply content driving their Buicks and Saturns. So it is with cables.

rw

[Rockwell]

Actually, you have two different situations here. My $69 Casio Waveceptor Atomic watch is more accurate than either my wife's Rolex or my Omega Speedmaster. The Swiss watches which were once standards of accuracy are now just nice pieces of jewelry that serve as timepieces.

The car analogy, however, is different. At least for those with the appropriate driving skills. While a Buick and a Mercedes both drive down the street, there are definitely differences in their performance envelope, not all aspects of which you can quantify. How do you measure the linearity and road feel in steering systems anyway? My elderly mother always liked her LeSabre and never "got" driving a friend's Mercedes. Nor my Acura TL. Her driving demands were quite modest. As for me, I rather like taking freeway ramps at .85 Gs where possible. Her LeSabre would understeer into the wall at that speed. Indeed, most folks are simply content driving their Buicks and Saturns. So it is with cables.

rw

I imagine it must be something measurable, or they wouldn't be able to build a car repeatedly with such a feel, it would just be trial and error. A good cable is engineered to have no "feel," thus anything percieved as being altered by a cable is your imagination or (very)poor engineering.

[JSE]

It's funny that internal wiring for most speakers is good ol' standard speaker wire. People spend all this money on these Boutique cables to carry a signal that eventually runs into good ol' standard speaker wire once the signal passes the terminals on the back of their speakers. How does that make sense?

JSE

[E-Stat]

I imagine it must be something measurable, or they wouldn't be able to build a car repeatedly with such a feel, it would just be trial and error.
There is a difference between replicating parts manufacturing processes and tolerance levels and measuring a dynamic performance parameter of a moving automobile. As for how they determined what those parameters should be, it does take lots of trial and effort. Lots of it. And certainly NOT by engineers, but those with considerably better driving skill. There are a sum total of zero automotive engineers who are competitive drivers. The world's most exotic automobiles, F1 cars, get refined virtually every year with even higher performance. By higher, I mean they shave fractions of a second off lap times.

There are some here who would say that after a century of design, the automotive engineers have solved all of the problems. And they would be wrong.

rw

[Chas Underhay]

Only a dummy would spend $2,000 on a cruise instead of using the money to buy an exotic cable. All kinds of terrible things can happen on a cruise ship. I recall shocking headlines like "HUNDREDS SICK AFTER CRUISE" and "SHARK DEVOURS VACATIONER" and "YOU CAN GET STD's ON A BOAT" and "FUN IN SUN CAUSES CANCER." So what do you have to show for your foolishness after you get home? Nothing, except possibly a hangover. But your exotic cable would still be worth something. After having fun with it, you could sell it and buy another maybe even more exotic cable. There is no end to the fun you can have. And it's CLEAN, SAFE FUN!

As a simple English country boy, I would much prefer to run the risk of contracting STDs or hangovers than pay through the nose for bull$hit cables. The first two are possible penalties for enjoyment, the latter is the penalty for being plain gulable.

By the way, I was using the vacationer as bait, the bastard tried sell me cables.

[DMK]

I'm enjoying the hell out of your posts! I've been lurking around here awhile and I'm not a "cable person" but that's not the point. You're bringing a POV that's been absent around here for the most part for a long time. Your arguments make sense, at least for a non-scientist like me, and they encourage the engagement of good debate. SPICY!!!! Much better stuff than the pseudo-science of a previous cable subjectivist from days of yore.

I'm still waiting for an answer to something you alluded to in another thread - what associated gear was used with the cable DBT's that yielded the null results? If there's any untruth to the old audiophile credo that anything but a high resolution system will not reveal cable sonics, I have yet to see it discredited by any of the DBT citations I've seen. So how about it, naysayers?

Carry on, gents!

[E-Stat]

I'm enjoying the hell out of your posts!
That's not why I post, but you're welcome. I, too lurked for a while until I thought it might be interesting to see how truly honest and frank some of the regulars are when their assumptions were questioned.



I'm still waiting for an answer to something you alluded to in another thread - what associated gear was used with the cable DBT's that yielded the null results?
Despite alledgedly wearing the cloak of openly stated and objective scientific testing methods, I doubt seriously that we will see much in the way of candidly reported appraisals. I've seen a sum total of one (Tag McLaren) - and it didn't support the Borg-like mantra. It is far easier to hide without such compromising details to defend. Certainly not from dialtones like Mtry.

rw

[Rockwell]

There is a difference between replicating parts manufacturing processes and tolerance levels and measuring a dynamic performance parameter of a moving automobile. As for how they determined what those parameters should be, it does take lots of trial and effort. Lots of it. And certainly NOT by engineers, but those with considerably better driving skill. There are a sum total of zero automotive engineers who are competitive drivers. The world's most exotic automobiles, F1 cars, get refined virtually every year with even higher performance. By higher, I mean they shave fractions of a second off lap times.

There are some here who would say that after a century of design, the automotive engineers have solved all of the problems. And they would be wrong.

rw

When those expert drivers come back with a complaint or sugestion about the feel of an automobile, the engineers must know what paramters to adjust to achieve a preference, right?

[E-Stat]

When those expert drivers come back with a complaint or sugestion about the feel of an automobile, the engineers must know what paramters to adjust to achieve a preference, right?
Yes, but if is far from rocket science. On some cars, the drivers can do over/understeer suspension fine tuning themselves with in-cockpit front and rear stiffness control. Other times, they tell the engineers which of more they need. The engineers then adjust the roll bars accordingly. For more understeer you need more roll stiffness at the front. For less understeer, you need less roll stiffness. They break out the wrench and dial in what is needed. Or swap out different sized bars altogether. Other times, on a given track the driver may complain of too much lift. Then the engineers need change the angle of the wings to increase downforce. Or conversely, if they are losing speed to competitors, the problem may be too much wing downforce. Then the engineers move the wings to reduce it.

Theoretical calculations are all but useless for anything other than initial suspension settings.

rw

[bturk667]

I would consider them a waste of money, but that is just me.

[Rockwell]

HiFis are a luxury. Exotic wires are, at best, a waste of money.

[mtrycraft]

I'm still waiting for an answer to something you alluded to in another thread - what associated gear was used with the cable DBT's that yielded the null results? If there's any untruth to the old audiophile credo that anything but a high resolution system will not reveal cable sonics, I have yet to see it discredited by any of the DBT citations I've seen. So how about it, naysayers? Carry on, gents!


You are asking the wrong question. It matters not how many DBT has null results where the hypothesis is accepted. What matters is demonstration for differences, on any system, esp[ecially one that would pass muster with all the golden ears as some will find faults with any system, excuses, really, not fact based.
So, you should be asking for the revealing system demonstrating those differences they think are there. Yep, nowhere around. Why?

[mtrycraft]

That's not why I post, but you're welcome. I, too lurked for a while until I thought it might be interesting to see how truly honest and frank some of the regulars are when their assumptions were questioned.



Despite alledgedly wearing the cloak of openly stated and objective scientific testing methods, I doubt seriously that we will see much in the way of candidly reported appraisals. I've seen a sum total of one (Tag McLaren) - and it didn't support the Borg-like mantra. It is far easier to hide without such compromising details to defend. Certainly not from dialtones like Mtry.

rw

Where are all the positive DBT data? That is what matters, demonstration of differences. LOL. Nowhere to be found. You have no case. ZERO.

[pctower]

You are asking the wrong question. It matters not how many DBT has null results where the hypothesis is accepted. What matters is demonstration for differences, on any system, esp[ecially one that would pass muster with all the golden ears as some will find faults with any system, excuses, really, not fact based.
So, you should be asking for the revealing system demonstrating those differences they think are there. Yep, nowhere around. Why?

No Sir. He is asking the only right question in response to your condescending statement to him about how much he still needs to learn after 30 years. You raised the question of his experience and how much he knows. So either answer his question or publicly retract that statement and apologize to him and don't attack others for matters you are not willing to reveal about yourself.

Either play fair or don't play.

[Monstrous Mike]

No Sir. He is asking the only right question in response to your condescending statement to him about how much he still needs to learn after 30 years.
You seem to imply that thirty years experience in this hobby means something a lot more than it does. This is not like a job where you work on it for hours each day, take courses and professional development, attend seminars, have tutors and peers, etc. If we take your ridiculous stance then perhaps I could give you some dental advice since I have 45 years of experience brushing my teeth. What nonsense.


Either play fair or don't play.
Oh Grand Puba of Audio Board Moderation, please let us in on the sacrosanct guidelines for fair play that you have drafted and we all shall follow.

[rb122]

You are asking the wrong question. It matters not how many DBT has null results where the hypothesis is accepted. What matters is demonstration for differences, on any system, esp[ecially one that would pass muster with all the golden ears as some will find faults with any system, excuses, really, not fact based.
So, you should be asking for the revealing system demonstrating those differences they think are there. Yep, nowhere around. Why?

Perhaps, and I'm just saying perhaps, all the "golden ears" with the grand systems feel secure enough in their listening protocol not to worry about performing DBT's on cables.

Further, why would one repeatedly test cables on systems that even the most staunch audiophile would likely say won't reveal differences in cable sound? If they are in fact testing them on "audiophile approved" gear, why don't they report this?

It's the scientist "naysayers" (I hate that word) that are demanding proof in the form of DBT. It is these same folks that actually perform these tests. But as far as we know, these tests are akin to testing low bass response on a tiny Bose Acoustimass satellite - bad analogy, probably! But you get the drift.

I agree that what matters is proof of a positive experience and there are none that we know of. However compelling the lack of such evidence is, the lack of seemingly appropriate testing protocol won't help to sway anyone to the objectivist side, IMHO.

[pctower]

You seem to imply that thirty years experience in this hobby means something a lot more than it does. This is not like a job where you work on it for hours each day, take courses and professional development, attend seminars, have tutors and peers, etc. If we take your ridiculous stance then perhaps I could give you some dental advice since I have 45 years of experience brushing my teeth. What nonsense.


Oh Grand Puba of Audio Board Moderation, please let us in on the sacrosanct guidelines for fair play that you have drafted and we all shall follow.

Mtry is the one who brought up experience. I'm simply asking him to play fair. If you want to talk to someone about the inferences to be drawn from 30 years of experience, talk to mtry. He implied in a very condescending way that E-stat had much to learn.

And you wholly failed to respond to my comments about the distinction between advising that something is "unproven" and the unqualified type of advice mtry (and many others here) give about the lack of audible differences between cables.

Grand Puba? You see there's one critical difference between me and most others on this board. I have been entirely open as to my identity and my background. People can assess what I say by reference to my experience, knowledge or lack of same.

Unfortunately, that can be said of very few who post on this board. You are one of the few exceptions.

[Monstrous Mike]

I have been entirely open as to my identity and my background. People can assess what I say by reference to my experience, knowledge or lack of same.
Does this really matter? I too have been open about my background but as I have stated in the past, I honestly believe that Albert Einstein could come back from the dead, write a new theory of cable relativity and people here would say: "Yeah, but has he ever designed an audio amp?".

And then when you get a guy who has designed an audio amp and poo-poos the idea of power cords (ie. Bryston), then their amps are suddenly crap and don't have the resolving power, etc., etc.

It's a never-ending cycle. The belief is so firmly entrenched there is no room for change. Now that is really quite sad. I actually admire Richard Greene for having the balls to participate in a DBT and be clearly shown that what he believed about cables was no true. But since that runs contrary to the popular cable myth his experience is dismissed out of hand. Doesn't follow the belief pattern.

What is at play here is called "Confirmation Bias". It is extremely powerful and hard to overcome. Read about it, it's really quite interesting.

If anything good comes from all of this rather useless debate, it might be that we learn a little more about ourselves, grow and little and become a little wiser.

[pctower]

Does this really matter? I too have been open about my background but as I have stated in the past, I honestly believe that Albert Einstein could come back from the dead, write a new theory of cable relativity and people here would say: "Yeah, but has he ever designed an audio amp?".

And then when you get a guy who has designed an audio amp and poo-poos the idea of power cords (ie. Bryston), then their amps are suddenly crap and don't have the resolving power, etc., etc.

It's a never-ending cycle. The belief is so firmly entrenched there is no room for change. Now that is really quite sad. I actually admire Richard Greene for having the balls to participate in a DBT and be clearly shown that what he believed about cables was no true. But since that runs contrary to the popular cable myth his experience is dismissed out of hand. Doesn't follow the belief pattern.

What is at play here is called "Confirmation Bias". It is extremely powerful and hard to overcome. Read about it, it's really quite interesting.

If anything good comes from all of this rather useless debate, it might be that we learn a little more about ourselves, grow and little and become a little wiser.

What did Richard believe that he now will state is not true?

I know about confirmation bias. I have never disputed the need to remove bias in blind testing.

Moreover, experience is not necessary if one is simply going to parrot sloppy test results and claim they mean something - it sure would help however. It would particularly help those who may be lead to believe their is more value to the citing of those test results that is actually there.

You're the man of science. I'm surprised you don't demand that proper protocol and statistical analysis be followed, rather than accepting test results simply because of your own "Confirmation Bias".

In any event, when one goes beyond reporting these test results and draws firm conclusions and inflicts those conclusions, without any qualification at all, on newcomers, then I think his background and experience becomes important. He has drawn firm conclusions from irreliable data drawn from a painfully small number of amateur tests and derived absolute dogma therefrom. I submit he has provided no basis for one to conclude that he is capable of doing anything other than posting lists of articles from the popular press (that is, as I said, the mainly now-defunct Julian Hirsch type press).

As for Bryston, if is often discussed that their power supplies seem to be immune from deriving any benefit from special power cords. I certainly don't know, because I have only heard one Bryston piece - a preamp I tried for a week many years ago and returned because of its harsh, brittle sound - but I don't see Bryston generally trashed. As far as I can tell it's a well respected name in high end circles. You seem to have an intense need to make everyone who makes decisions that are at odds with your approach to life wrong and stupid, and therefore you create this sweeping general descriptions of the people you think are stupid, and generally I believe your generalizations are way off base.

[E-Stat]

I actually admire Richard Greene for having the balls to participate in a DBT...
But apparently does not have the balls to answer questions raised by myself and others as to the particulars of that test. What is there to hide?

rw

[Monstrous Mike]

It's a never-ending cycle.
Summary:

There is no valid evidence of cable sonics. There, cycle over until somebody comes up with something credible.

[Tony_Montana]

NBS has a chart on thier site. If You have "X" dollars in a system, the cables MUST cost "X" amount. I mean something to the tune of, If your system costs $25k you MUST spend $5k+ on cables...and it gets worse.

That notion must be the one of dumbest audio myth that is floating around. It make cable issue black&white, with no gray area between-which is really sad :(


Tony, can you be more specific about what you mean by "expensive or exotic cables?"

Except for special case such as long runs or noisy environment, if a cable maker goes beyond cable's specification and add things that don't effect the sonic quality of cable and charge for it, then I would call that expensive or exotic.


Indeed, most folks are simply content driving their Buicks and Saturns. So it is with cables.

Well, lets look at this way:If speed limit on the freeway is 65 mph, then it doesn't matter if you are driving a Pinto (which I used to own :D) or a Nascar. You can not go over 65 mph.

The same logic can be applied to cables. If Physics dictate how electrons move from point A to point B, then it doesn't matter if you have $1000 cable or $10 one. Both have to obey law of Physics no matter how much money one throw at it.


People spend all this money on these Boutique cables to carry a signal that eventually runs into good ol' standard speaker wire once the signal passes the terminals on the back of their speakers. How does that make sense?

It doesn't. If you ever open up a speaker, you will see the thinnest speaker wires (which probably cost 0.1 cent a foot) going from terminal to speakers which will make audiophiles cry murder :)


So either answer his question or publicly retract that statement and apologize to him and don't attack others for matters you are not willing to reveal about yourself.

Mtry apologizing?? Now you are asking for impossibility :D

[JSE]

It doesn't. If you ever open up a speaker, you will see the thinnest speaker wires (which probably cost 0.1 cent a foot) going from terminal to speakers which will make audiophiles cry murder :)


Then why the argument about expensive cables? The wiring in your amp is "cheap" then you put expensive cables from your receiver to your speakers or other components and then once there, you have "cheap" wires again up to your drivers. Your starting with cheap wire and ending with cheap wire. What the hell difference does it make what you have in between? To me, the whole argument about expensive cables is moot, unless you do some custom wiring in your speakers or components. Am I just clueless or do I have a point? If their is a difference is sound because of cables then why don't we see a expensive binding post craze or expensive internal wiring craze?

JSE

[E-Stat]

Well, lets look at this way:If speed limit on the freeway is 65 mph, then it doesn't matter if you are driving a Pinto (which I used to own :D) or a Nascar. You can not go over 65 mph...The same logic can be applied to cables.
I like your post because I think it really sheds some light as to how differently we approach the topic. Like your analogy, the cable detractors look in terms of simplistic one-dimensional criteria. A car needs to go, but it also needs to drive around corners, and brake. Rather than using a crude stock car as the comparison, lets use something closer, and in some ways, better. A Honda S2000 for example will drive 65 mph around corners that would roll over the Pinto. Even at lower speeds, cornering in a Pinto and encountering a bump will force it's simplistic live axle rear end to jump, lose traction, and require correction. A Honda S2000's independent suspension would be largely unaffected by such. A Honda S2000 is capable of panic braking in substantially less distance than a Pinto. There is also a vast difference in how much time it takes for these two vehicles to reach 65 mph.

The real worlds of driving and music listening are more complex than you suggest.

rw

[E-Stat]

Then why the argument about expensive cables?
You have a valid point when you limit the discussion to receivers and speakers with "cheap wire" as you put it not to mention other cheap parts as well. Although the sins are cumulative, there is little to gain when there is little to begin with. The scenario is different, however, for when those "cheap wire" assumptions are not true.

rw

[okiemax]

Tony, thanks for responding to my request regarding what you mean by "expensive or exotic cables."

You replied: "Except for special case such as long runs or noisy environment, if a cable maker goes beyond cable's specification and add things that don't effect the sonic quality of cable and charge for it, then I would call that expensive or exotic."

While this is an interesting definition, I don't believe it can be easily used to label each cable on the market as either expensive or inexpensive. I think you understand my point without me listing scores of different cable models and asking you to identify the expensive and inexpensive ones. I was hoping instead for "expensive" defined in terms of dollars.

[JSE]

You have a valid point when you limit the discussion to receivers and speakers with "cheap wire" as you put it not to mention other cheap parts as well. Although the sins are cumulative, there is little to gain when there is little to begin with. The scenario is different, however, for when those "cheap wire" assumptions are not true.

rw

Thanks for the reply. I guess what I am trying to say. Why put $500, $1000, or even $3000 cables or speaker cables on speakers and components that don't have the same "quality" on the inside? I have seen the inside of Vandersteen speakers as well as higher end paradigm speakes. Looks like generic wire to me. Granted some would think these are low end, but the same argument exist. Why put $500 cables on these speakers? Does not make sense.


JSE

[DMK]

So, you should be asking for the revealing system demonstrating those differences they think are there. Yep, nowhere around. Why?

Because DBT's using a "revealing" system may not have ever been performed. That's the problem E-Stat and PCTower have - these tests don't cite the equipment used in the test. If all these DBT's are done with cheap receivers and cheap bookshelf speakers, they won't satisfy the audiophile wisdom. Of course, then we get into another debate as to what constitues a "revealing" system. Didn't Monstrous Mike say in this thread that the debate will never end? :)

[Rockwell]

Because DBT's using a "revealing" system may not have ever been performed. That's the problem E-Stat and PCTower have - these tests don't cite the equipment used in the test. If all these DBT's are done with cheap receivers and cheap bookshelf speakers, they won't satisfy the audiophile wisdom. Of course, then we get into another debate as to what constitues a "revealing" system. Didn't Monstrous Mike say in this thread that the debate will never end? :)

"Revealing system" is undefined, as is the term "audiophile wisdom." :D

[mtrycraft]

He implied in a very condescending way that E-stat had much to learn.
.


Are you implying he has nothing more to learn in audio? That his experience gives him immunity from biase? From audio hype, bs, mythology, voodoo?
I have run into those so called experts with a lot of experience, teaching , and to find out that they should have chosen a different endevor as their experience was lacking in real knowledge, real know how, real thinking and evaluating.
Yes, life is full of tricks.

[mtrycraft]

I honestly believe that Albert Einstein could come back from the dead, write a new theory of cable relativity and people here would say: "Yeah, but has he ever designed an audio amp?"..

Or worse, imply what would he know as he is not an audiophile.

[mtrycraft]

But apparently does not have the balls to answer questions raised by myself and others as to the particulars of that test. What is there to hide?

rw


Your turn to demonstrate audible differences. Burden of proof. How about it?

[skeptic]

Your mistake is that you assume that audiophiles make their decisions on how to spend their money on a rational basis. This is clearly not the case or there wouldn't even be an audio cable industry unless and until they not only proved that their product sounds different but that is sounds better and worth the price. The fact that it appears to be thriving without that only goes to show how many people have money burning a hole in their pocket and are too eager to give it to anyone who can make them feel better. I only wish I had gotten in on this racket myself a long time ago.

[E-Stat]

Your turn to demonstrate audible differences. Burden of proof. How about it?
Yesterday I made flight arrangements to meet my friends JWC and HP up at Seacliff next month. Naturally, I'm excited to get another intense exposure to the very real world of high end audio. I'll ask Harry if he's ever tried swapping out the Valhalla for zip ! :)

If only you could hear that system, you'd know.

rw

[Monstrous Mike]

Because DBT's using a "revealing" system may not have ever been performed. That's the problem E-Stat and PCTower have - these tests don't cite the equipment used in the test. If all these DBT's are done with cheap receivers and cheap bookshelf speakers, they won't satisfy the audiophile wisdom. Of course, then we get into another debate as to what constitues a "revealing" system. Didn't Monstrous Mike say in this thread that the debate will never end? :)
We have "revealing" systems and we have a method of using them to test wires. So what is the problem? If I was a yeasayer, I would use that and do something to shut Mtrycrafts up instead of always arguing with him.

Simply put, cable sonics are not supported by any credible evidence. Until that happens, Mtrycrafts and guys like him will always win any rational arguements regarding this subject.

[woodman]

"Revealing system" is undefined, as is a the term "audiophile wisdom." :D

In my experience (which covers a whole bunch of years), the term "audiophile wisdom" is nothing more than an oxymoron - much like "The Moral Majority" (which was neither one) of some years back. This is why I decided back in the 1970s to turn in my membership card, secret decoder ring, etc. and resign from the Audiophile Society once and for all. I considered myself an "audiophile" since long before the term was ever coined (back in the late 1930s), but I saw with dismay just where my fellow audio nuts were headed and I wanted no part of it. Today, I don't want anyone to call me an audiophile ... it's become a negative term to me.

[pctower]

In my experience (which covers a whole bunch of years), the term "audiophile wisdom" is nothing more than an oxymoron - much like "The Moral Majority" (which was neither one) of some years back. This is why I decided back in the 1970s to turn in my membership card, secret decoder ring, etc. and resign from the Audiophile Society once and for all. I considered myself an "audiophile" since long before the term was ever coined (back in the late 1930s), but I saw with dismay just where my fellow audio nuts were headed and I wanted no part of it. Today, I don't want anyone to call me an audiophile ... it's become a negative term to me.

Which I assumes means that you have not listened to a system above the BestBuy/CircuitCity level since sometime in the 1970s.

[woodman]

Which I assumes means that you have not listened to a system above the BestBuy/CircuitCity level since sometime in the 1970s.

Now there's a nonsensically snotty statement if there ever was one ... not fitting for a man of your purported sophistication, Phil. Sounds like something that Jon Risch might come up with. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

FYI ... over the course of my life, I've listened to nearly everything ever put on the market - at ALL price levels including those products that carry pricetags that most sane people would consider excessive. I've also serviced audio products from all across the pricing spectrum - from the very cheap to the very expensive. All of which has given me more first-hand knowledge and experience than perhaps any two other members here combined.

[E-Stat]

I've listened to nearly everything ever put on the market - at ALL price levels including those products that carry pricetags that most sane people would consider excessive.
Which combination of components did you favor most?

rw

[DMK]

We have "revealing" systems and we have a method of using them to test wires. So what is the problem? If I was a yeasayer, I would use that and do something to shut Mtrycrafts up instead of always arguing with him.

Simply put, cable sonics are not supported by any credible evidence. Until that happens, Mtrycrafts and guys like him will always win any rational arguements regarding this subject.

The problem seems to be that the folks with "revealing" systems don't care about testing and those that care about testing don't have revealing systems as far as anyone knows. The solution is simple: set those concerned with testing up with revealing systems that they've become familiar with over time and then test zip cord against an expensive cable. Post both the results and the system. If the argument is that a revealing system is required to hear the sounds of different cables, why would the naysayers test with anything else? It doesn't support their argument against cable sonics. If, using the time honored car analogy, a group of people stated that a grand wazoomatic improves the performance of a Maserati, why would disbelievers test it on a Toyota?

Mtrycrafts and guys like him forgot to tell the yeasayers they've lost all the rational arguments. As you yourself said on this very thread, this debate has gone on for many years and will likely continue for many more.

[DMK]

"Revealing system" is undefined, as is a the term "audiophile wisdom." :D

LOL! No argument there! OTOH, I love my Vans Evers audiophile power strip. It has a little plastic piece surrounding the power cord which can be moved up and down the cord which gives the entire unit the marketing gimmick of being "tunable". However, not only will it not "give me an A", no matter where I position the plastic thing, the piece of music I'm listening to never changes its key, nor any of the notes. My next experiment is to see if it can prepare a tunable sandwich or something because I'm still trying to figure out what Vans Evers means by tunable. It's the one piece of equipment left over from my nutty audiophile lack o' wisdom days that is actually still useful. It does, after all, power all my gear.

[Rockwell]

The problem seems to be that the folks with "revealing" systems don't care about testing and those that care about testing don't have revealing systems as far as anyone knows. The solution is simple: set those concerned with testing up with revealing systems that they've become familiar with over time and then test zip cord against an expensive cable. Post both the results and the system. If the argument is that a revealing system is required to hear the sounds of different cables, why would the naysayers test with anything else? It doesn't support their argument against cable sonics. If, using the time honored car analogy, a group of people stated that a grand wazoomatic improves the performance of a Maserati, why would disbelievers test it on a Toyota?

Mtrycrafts and guys like him forgot to tell the yeasayers they've lost all the rational arguments. As you yourself said on this very thread, this debate has gone on for many years and will likely continue for many more.


Cable companies are too smart to perform these tests and audiophiles are too egotistical to believe that whatever they hear isn't necessarily God's honest truth. It's a perfect storm of greed, gulibility, and conceit.

[E-Stat]

Cable companies are too smart to perform these tests and audiophiles are too egotistical to believe that whatever they hear isn't necessarily God's honest truth. It's a perfect storm of greed, gulibility, and conceit.
Or for the reasons I stated in this other thread. Funny how no one seemed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio product who uses such testing for promotional use. The answer is obvious.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53

rw

[mtrycraft]

Or for the reasons I stated in this other thread. Funny how no one seemed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio product who uses such testing for promotional use. The answer is obvious.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53

rw

Actually, there are consumer products that do use trials in their advertisements, 'Airborne' for one that comes to mind.

Just today I noticed the price of 5lb sugar, $1.75 for one brand, $2.00 for the other. You think they need a DBT for that? They both sell. People are gullible indeed.

[mtrycraft]

Your mistake is that you assume that audiophiles make their decisions on how to spend their money on a rational basis.

No, I don't assume that, not from what I have been reading :) Just trying to offer another avenue for those who are interested :)

[mtrycraft]

Yesterday I made flight arrangements to meet my friends JWC and HP up at Seacliff next month. Naturally, I'm excited to get another intense exposure to the very real world of high end audio. I'll ask Harry if he's ever tried swapping out the Valhalla for zip ! :)

If only you could hear that system, you'd know.

rw

If only you'd listen under DBT, you'd know for sure too. :)

But, you mentioned in a post you are in Atlanta area. Therfe is a small company that makes speakers, ELS type. They conduct DBT and have a standing offere too, from what I remember Chuck mentioned some time back. You should explore that and see. Nothing to loose.

[E-Stat]

Actually, there are consumer products that do use trials in their advertisements, 'Airborne' for one that comes to mind..
You know, bud your reading retention really sucks. Read my post again. See the word "audio"?

BTW, are you singular like your moniker or plural like your signature?

rw

[E-Stat]

If only you'd listen under DBT, you'd know for sure too. :)
I don't share your insecurity when it comes to that system.


But, you mentioned in a post you are in Atlanta area. Therfe is a small company that makes speakers, ELS type. They conduct DBT and have a standing offere too, from what I remember Chuck mentioned some time back. You should explore that and see. Nothing to loose.
Therfe have an offere with nothing to loose? Would you mind translating that in our native tongue please? And what are ELS speakers?

rw

[skeptic]

Acoustic Research used to use DBTs in their advertising and at trade shows. DBTs against what? Against live music. I attended two demos myself. Close your eyes and see if you could pick out which was live and which was the recording. I heard AR3 demo against a classical guitarist and AR3a against a nickelodeon. On the classic speakers discussion board there was a discussion recently of AB of AR10pi against Neil Grover. Admittedly, the recordings must be made in an anechoic environment and the demos must be carefully planned and carried out. Why didn't audiophiles embrace the AR speakers as the best in the market and keep AR a leader? BECAUSE AUDIOPHILES DO NOT LIKE THE SOUND OF ACCURATE SOUND SYSTEMS.

http://www.arsenal.net/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=3411&mesg_id=3411&page=2

Postings by SteveF and Tom Tyson were especially interesting.

[Rockwell]

Or for the reasons I stated in this other thread. Funny how no one seemed to find ANY manufacturer of ANY audio product who uses such testing for promotional use. The answer is obvious.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53

rw

I would find that kind of advertising for audio products persuasive. I don't know why others wouldn't.

I don't recall seing the kind of preoposterous ad copy for receivers that I've seen for cables. Choosing a receiver is a matter of personal preference in terms of features and capacity. It is not a leap of faith to believe what is advertised. I've never seen receiver makers have to make stuff up to sell their product like "newly discovered fractal resonance control technology."

[E-Stat]

Acoustic Research used to use DBTs in their advertising and at trade shows.
That sure is a blast from the past. The AR-3 would place that advertising during what, the Kennedy years?


Why didn't audiophiles embrace the AR speakers as the best in the market and keep AR a leader?
Because far better existed such as the Quad and the KLH 9. Not to mention many to come including one inexpensive upstart from a guy named Henry. I happen to have a pair of his first born in my vintage garage system today.

rw

[E-Stat]

I would find that kind of advertising for audio products persuasive. I don't know why others wouldn't.
Read my post again.



Choosing a receiver is a matter of personal preference in terms of features and capacity.
Or whichever one is on sale at BB or CC.

rw

[mtrycraft]

I don't share your insecurity when it comes to that system.


You are just scared of the truth, nothing to do with security.

Therfe have an offere with nothing to loose? Would you mind translating that in our native tongue please? And what are ELS speakers?

rw

Maybe they are ESL speakers then. I think Art Sanders is behind them. I believe he as a $1000 offer to detect audible differences but not sure. Even is there is no offer, until you try, you are just guessing what you think you hear. No ifs, ands about it.

[mtrycraft]

BTW, are you singular like your moniker or plural like your signature?

rw


Well, my original moniker quit working here after a while then I had to re-register so I am using the sig line.

Oh, just because DBT is not used in audio now doesn't mean they would not be used in the future if it served an advatnage over the other guys components. Others do it in consumerland. But, they don't as they know the outcome.

[E-Stat]

You are just scared of the truth...
Scary is not the word I would use to describe Harry's system. Spooky, yes. I have never heard another system make the walls vanish like that one.



I think Art Sanders is behind them. I believe he as a $1000 offer to detect audible differences but not sure. Even is there is no offer, until you try, you are just guessing what you think you hear. No ifs, ands about it.
Are you talking about Roger Sanders and Innersound? A $1000 offer to detect what? He does have some very nice products. Harry is now using a pair of his amps on the subwoofer towers of the Alon Grand Exoticas using Valhalla, naturally. I am anxious to hear them as he says they sound much better than the Krells he previously used.

rw

[skeptic]

None of the speakers you cited were ever played one on one with a live musical source at a demo. Photographs of AR3s playing against an Aolean Skinner pipe organ were shown in advertising copy. There were others as well. AR3 produced the deepest bass with the lowest harmonic distortion of any speaker available including the mighty A7 Voice of the Theater for a long time. When the standard was accuracy, the top of the line AR speaker was the unit of choice for at least two decades. When the standard was something else such as a pleasing sound, anybody's pick was as good as anybody elses.

Camera's are equally unforgiving. That's why we use soft filters, air brushes, and special techniques such as dodging and burning in portrait photography. Reality is often not what we are looking for. An enhanced romanticized version of it is often far more pleasing. This puts the manufacturer at a clear advantage over the consumer. When no standards exist, he can invent an infinite variety of his products each time claiming the latest is better than all of his previous offerings and better than everything his competitors offer at the same price. If there is a standard which is to duplicate something else precisely, not only does each incremental improvement become more difficult to obtain, more expensive, and more difficult to justify in terms of cost, but once he achieves what most of the market would see as perfection, all he can offer is cheaper, smaller, more reliable versions of the same product. And that means a mature product with less profits.

[E-Stat]

None of the speakers you cited were ever played one on one with a live musical source at a demo.
What does that have to do with your question (and my response) concerning why the waskly audiophiles didn't continue to "embrace" AR?

rw

[skeptic]

"Because far better existed such as the Quad and the KLH 9. Not to mention many to come including one inexpensive upstart from a guy named Henry. I happen to have a pair of his first born in my vintage garage system today."

I also have some of "Henry's" speakers. A pair of KLH 6s, not in my garage but in my sun room. But they are not as accurate as AR3 or AR3a were.

What does better mean? If the goal of high fidelity is accurate sound reproduction then they weren't better. At least if they were, they never proved it. People liked them more, that's all. Just like they prefer the retouched images of portrait photos of their family. Certainly, neither KLH9, nor Quad ESL 63 was even remotely close to AR3 in bass reproduction. No full range electrostatic speaker ever was.

[E-Stat]

But they are not as accurate as AR3 or AR3a were.
I think you'll find many consider the Larger Advent to be as accurate.


No full range electrostatic speaker ever was.
Please do share you thoughts on the sound and measured response of the Sound Labs U-1, Acoustat 8, and the Martin-Logan Statement to support your statement.

rw

[skeptic]

Some so called full range electrostatic speakers use a conventional woofer for the deep bass. I am not familiar with every one out there. Deep bass reproduction is one of the electrostatic loudspeaker's inherent shortcomings. A loudspeaker which can produce 100+db at 30hz with 5% or less distortion even today is a rare bird. I don't know of any electrostatic panel which can do that. Too bad Radar O Reily no longer posts here. He was an expert on electrostatic speakers and could give a difinitive answer to that question, not just guesses or generalities.

In one of the early versions of the AR 12" acoustic suspension loudspeaker, the woofer was paired with a JanZen electrostatic tweeter. Vilcher could have gone that way if he felt it had given the best results. The fact that he didn't suggests to me that there were shortcomings of electrostatic speakers he found unacceptable. BTW, AR invented among many other devices commonly used today and taken for granted, the dome tweeter. Ferro fluid cooling too.

In an article many years ago in Popular Science Magazine called "the sound system I wish I owned" the dream system of the author used Rectilinear III loudspeakers. Many people including some reviewers felt it sounded exactly like the Quad ESL 63 except in the bass where it was much better.

[E-Stat]

Some so called full range electrostatic speakers use a conventional woofer for the deep bass.
No, those would be called hybrids. That is certainly not the case with Acoustat, Sound Labs, Quad, etc.



I am not familiar with every one out there.
Obviously. For some reason, however, that doesn't prevent you from making absolute comments as the performance of that which you have no clue.



Deep bass reproduction is one of the electrostatic loudspeaker's inherent shortcomings.
Your mastery of the obvious is mindboggling.



I don't know of any electrostatic panel which can do that.
Since you know zilch about some of the top units available, that comes as no surprise.



In one of the early versions of the AR 12" acoustic suspension loudspeaker, the woofer was paired with a JanZen electrostatic tweeter. Vilcher could have gone that way if he felt it had given the best results. The fact that he didn't suggests to me that there were shortcomings of electrostatic speakers he found unacceptable.
D'ya think? How would a two way speaker sound with a 12" woofer and an electrostatic tweeter array? Can you say discontinuity?



BTW, AR invented among many other devices commonly used today and taken for granted, the dome tweeter. Ferro fluid cooling too.
Tell me, how has your stock portfolio with them done over the years?



In an article many years ago in Popular Science Magazine called "the sound system I wish I owned" the dream system of the author used Rectilinear III loudspeakers. Many people including some reviewers felt it sounded exactly like the Quad ESL 63 except in the bass where it was much better.
LOL! Well at least your references are moving forward somewhat in time. That would be about thirty years ago. Yep, those babies sounded exactly like a 'stat. NOT. They were, however, pretty decent floorstanders when I heard them back in 1973 . That same dealer also sold AR and had a pair of LSTs on display. Based on the glowing reviews of that day, I thought that hearing those would be a treat. Boy was I mistaken. I'll never forget what the salesperson called them: toads.

rw

[Beckman]

Looking at cable as a part of a bigger picture of human-nature....

Humans tend to purchase products/commodities equal to their purchasing power. For example, a rich person will buy a Mercedes rather than a Buick, or Rollex instead of Timex. Mind you that Buick or Timex will do the same function as their expensive counterpart (or may be better), but Rollex and Mercedes does it with style and feel good.

Can we apply the same logic to expensive or exotic cables? If one owns expensive components and speakers, would they want to have 0.30 cent a foot zip cord (that have HomeDepot logo on it :D) hanging from back of their $3,000 speakers, or $10 Radio shack IC from $5,000 amplifier?

There is a fierce commitment going on at some other audio board (which I am not going to mention) to rationalize use of exotic/expensive cables, but at the end, it all might come down to cosmetic rather than functionality if we include the human factor.

Expensive Interconnects can only sound equal to, or worse than their inexpensive counter parts. Rich people buy expensive cables because of ignorance.

[skeptic]

" That same dealer also sold AR and had a pair of LSTs on display. Based on the glowing reviews of that day, I thought that hearing those would be a treat. Boy was I mistaken. I'll never forget what the salesperson called them: toads."

These were among the most accurate sound reproducers ever built and offered to the public. When the standard was live music they were demonstrated in real life to sound very much like it. Of course when there is another standard such as what some "likes" or what is bringing in the most profits for a store, or what makes the loudest most annoying thump thump thump, or the shrillest screech, anybody's choice is as good as any other. And after all, wouldn't a "salesperson" who called them toads know a lot more about loudspeakers than some of the best designers and manufacturers who ever went into the business?

[mtrycraft]

Scary is not the word I would use to describe Harry's system. Spooky, yes. I have never heard another system make the walls vanish like that one.



Are you talking about Roger Sanders and Innersound? A $1000 offer to detect what? He does have some very nice products. Harry is now using a pair of his amps on the subwoofer towers of the Alon Grand Exoticas using Valhalla, naturally. I am anxious to hear them as he says they sound much better than the Krells he previously used.

rw

No, not the speakers are scary, to find out the truth is.

Yes, Roger Sanders is more like it. Give him a call and see. Get the story first hand. My meory of that short tale from a long time ago is not trustworthy. You are close enough to visit and find out, sit in the hot seat and test your skills, if you have any. Doubtfull.

[E-Stat]

You are close enough to visit and find out, sit in the hot seat and test your skills, if you have any. Doubtfull.
Unfortunately, he and company have moved to Colorado. Speaking of skills, why is it we never hear of yours?

rw

[E-Stat]

These were among the most accurate sound reproducers ever built and offered to the public.
Do you ever say anything about AR speakers that isn't grandiose? Flat response alone does not a great speaker make. How long did the LST / LST2 last? Four years? Five?

rw

[WmAx]

When the standard was accuracy, the top of the line AR speaker was the unit of choice for at least two decades. When the standard was something else such as a pleasing sound, anybody's pick was as good as anybody elses.


I agree. But it is more of a hope then a reality, IMO. An 'accurate' loudspeaker will not nescarrily(and usually will not) sound accurate with most recordings. Until a standard is used for recording/mastering(BADLY needed, IMO), an 'accurate' loudspeaker is usually NOT accurate in net performance results with today's non-standarized recordigns. Personally, I prefer a loudspeaker that has a slight non-linearity that makes 'most' of my favorite music sound as realistic as possible. When standards emerge from both sides(recording/matering and loudspeaker engineering) and are embraced, I'll be certain that my main speakers meet the standards guidelines. I would like to give an example: the Sony MDR-7506(also known as MDR-V6) is one of the most linear headphones I have ever heard. However, I base this on listening to linear measurement micrphones through a mixing board/feed, listening to the live sources of sound/music at the same approximate distance as the micrphones. The tonality and detail sounded etremely close. Unfortunately, most music on these studio monitor headphones sounds very unpleasing, and not realistic, IMO. It seems to be a problem in the micing/recording/mastering process that is producing this issue. Their is no standard.

-Chris

[skeptic]

I disagree. I have two pairs. With well made recordings such as those by Deutche Gramaphone, Phillips, and other top notch classical recording companies whose goal is to make the most faithful sounding recordings they can, I think that most of them sound excellent. At $67.50 they were a steal. They were originally brought to my attention by Consumers Reports Magazine and after heaing a neighbor's pair, I ordered mine immediately. That was 12 years ago and I haven' t regretted it since. They still sound very accurate. Only problem, when listening to them on the deck of a ship in the Carribean, my ears get warm and uncomfortable from the heat after a while. An open ear version apparantly using the same drivers at even lower cost under the Radio Shack name sounds the same except that the lack of close over the ear coupling reduces the bass. It had the advantage of a built in volume control and was even less expensive. My Sony Car Discman 808 easily drives all three pairs to very high volumes and has the advantage of a digital DSP which can provide some dynamic compression without being artificial. Very useful in a high noise environment. (You'd be surprised at how noisy the mechanical equipment on a ship can be when you are listening to music.)

[skeptic]

I'm talking about performance, not commercial success. Bose 901 a speaker you don't like lasted 35 years and is still going strong. So what. When it's live versus recorded, that's where the rubber meets the road. At that point, as far as accuracy goes, it's time to put up or shut up. All the advertising hype at that point is no more that a pile of meaningless papers with ad copy printed on it. As was said here nobody, except AR could pull it off because nobody elses design had what it takes. A lot of other speakers had nice sound to some people maybe, but not accurate sound. Its these kinds of tests that separates the top notch products created by knowledgable engineers from the bull crap, whether it's speakers or speaker cables.

[E-Stat]

As was said here nobody, except AR could pull it off because nobody elses design had what it takes. .
You really do need to get out of the house more often than once every three decades. Despite your paranoid delusion that audio accuracy somehow stopped with the likes of the AR-3 and the LST, there is a world, entirely unknown to you, of far more musically accurate speakers. May you enjoy your Ford era world.

rw

[WmAx]

I disagree.

I can only restate my original claim: they sound very accurate at the miced position using linear(measurement) microphones. Few performances are recorded in a far field position with linear microphones, in order to allow an 'accurate' transducer to give the same placement perspective, tonally, that you would be accustomed too in a real performance.

Look at a headphone that is claimed(by audiophiles) to be 'very' natural sounding, such as the Senheisser HD600. Comparing amplitude plots from example, the MDR-7506 and the HD600, the HD600 has a steady gradient of amplitude loss into thte high-mid and treble region. I assume this helps to compensate for the many recordings where sounds are recorded closer then what one is accustomed to hearing.

Can we agree to disagree? :-)

-Chris

[skeptic]

"It seems to be a problem in the micing/recording/mastering process that is producing this issue. Their is no standard."

I can certainly agree with this insofar as pop music is concerned. These gimicked recordings have absolutely nothing to do with reality of what someone would hear at a live take. In fact many of them would be more accurately described as assembled rather than recorded. The term "high fidelity" is ludicrous when applied to these recordings. There are not only no standards, but the engineers who spin the dials are looking for "a sound" which is more like a commercial trademark than a documentation of something that actually happened. More like a painting of a fantasy than a photographic record of an event. To the extent that the best of the classical lables like DG tweak their recordings, it is in the service of making the end product sound more like the original through the limitations of a high fidelity sound system. But even they sometimes go too far. If there is one thing that I dislike about some recordings, it is where the balance engineer exaggerates the loudness of a solo instrument so that a violin sounds as loud as an entire symphony orchestra. On playback, there is nothing the listener can adjust to undo the damage.

[skeptic]

You can't have it both ways. On one hand, either the equipment that comes closest to the real thing by proving it in AB tests against live musicians is best or what you like based on your own personal preference is best in which case there are no standards or absolutes whatsoever. For my money, the ones that prove under controlled conditions that they do what they say they do is where I select my choices from. Using any other standard sets you up for an endless series of swaps looking for a nirvana that doesn't exist. When accurate is not good enough, it's time to re-examine just what you buy audio equipment for in the first place.

[DMK]

Cable companies are too smart to perform these tests and audiophiles are too egotistical to believe that whatever they hear isn't necessarily God's honest truth. It's a perfect storm of greed, gulibility, and conceit.

I don't disagree. But as a result, I also think that both the lack of evidence of cable sonics from DBT and also the tests we do show that have negative outcomes from poorly designed protocol are NOT credible evidence of the lack of cable sonics. The science, however, is credible evidence and the science does not support the audiophile POV.

DBT may or may not be the best means to determine cable sonics. But until we have some tests that use what is perceived by audiophiles as a "revealing" system, none of them are going to sway anyone. On this issue, ONLY not one but several of these kinds of tests that show the scientifically accepted hypothesis to be correct might make some headway into resolving the cable conflict.

[WmAx]

"It seems to be a problem in the micing/recording/mastering process that is producing this issue. Their is no standard."

I can certainly agree with this insofar as pop music is concerned. These gimicked recordings have absolutely nothing to do with reality of what someone would hear at a live take. In fact many of them would be more accurately described as assembled rather than recorded. The term "high fidelity" is ludicrous when applied to these recordings. There are not only no standards, but the engineers who spin the dials are looking for "a sound" which is more like a commercial trademark than a documentation of something that actually happened. More like a painting of a fantasy than a photographic record of an event. To the extent that the best of the classical lables like DG tweak their recordings, it is in the service of making the end product sound more like the original through the limitations of a high fidelity sound system. But even they sometimes go too far. If there is one thing that I dislike about some recordings, it is where the balance engineer exaggerates the loudness of a solo instrument so that a violin sounds as loud as an entire symphony orchestra. On playback, there is nothing the listener can adjust to undo the damage.
Their needs to be a standard established and followed by the industry, at least in acoustical performances such as classical, IMO. Besides the 'enhancements' such as you referred to, some still close mike almost every instrument and resassemble on a mixing board. Take notice of especially movie soundtracks; where it is normal to studio produce the large orchestral pieces. Jazz, bluegrass, etc. recordings mainly have the same problems as pop and rock music, where everything is close miced and reassembled on the board. Heck, in jazz, etc. it is common to use vintage and popular recording mics that are non-linear, with several dBs fluctuation in amplitude respnose, becuase someone likes the 'coloration' of this crap(IMO) microphone.

-Chris

[E-Stat]

the extent that the best of the classical lables like DG tweak their recordings....
The best like Deutsche Gramophone? LOL!

Try some recordings from Telarc, Everest, Chesky, Reference Recordings, Wilson, etc. when you speak of the best of the classical labels.

rw

[mtrycraft]

Unfortunately, he and company have moved to Colorado. Speaking of skills, why is it we never hear of yours?

rw


That's a bummer. He must like skiing more.
My skills are really unimportant to the discussions. Just think of me as a ditch digger and be satisfied.

[E-Stat]

Just think of me as a ditch digger and be satisfied.
I will weigh your ability to understand these complex issues in your newly recommended light.

rw