$35K for Speaker Cables!

[nightflier]

Perhaps not the most expensive out there, but quite a chunk of change for cables:

http://www.mitcables.com/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/resized/Oracle_MA_X_Spea_4aaacbce87fd6_90x90.jpg
MIT Oracle MA-X loudspeaker cable (http://www.mitcables.com/available-in-stores/oracle-ma-x-speaker-cable.html)

So, can someone tell me what's happening in that little box dangling off these cables? Does it turn sound into gold? Gee I wonder if they really sound $34,781.50 better than these cables:

http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/images/DH-TH.jpg
Mapleshade Clearview Double Helix Plus Speaker Cables (http://shop.mapleshadestore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=DHELIX-PLU) (also their top-of-the-line)

[audio amateur]

Nope, the inside is lined with diamonds:D

Sick, I know...

[Ajani]

So what else would you use with $350K Speakers, if not $35K Cables?

[audio amateur]

$350?

[nightflier]

$350K? I'd put a down-payment on a house - much better investment.

[Tarheel_]

I'd buy a pair, twice over....to power my HTIB

[E-Stat]

$350?
Listen to a carefully matched $350k system and you'll understand. The one I heard used Nordost Odin cabling throughout. :)

rw

[Ajani]

$350K? I'd put a down-payment on a house - much better investment.

The Audiophile with $350K to spend on HiFi, probably already has a fantastic house (and maybe even has a Bentley in the driveway) so why shouldn't he drop $35K on some cables?

[bfalls]

For $35K they should bypass the ears altogether and direct connect to the brain. Imagine, no outside interference, no problems due to hearing loss, no large speakers taking up living space. You could do video the same way. Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

[Hyfi]

Listen to a carefully matched $350k system and you'll understand. The one I heard used Nordost Odin cabling throughout. :)

rw

Amen! Boy do I miss Room 1 at Soundex. I got to hear some pretty cool gear there. And your right, with a nicely matched mega buck system, you certainly would not use a Monster cable.

[Feanor]

$350K? I'd put a down-payment on a house - much better investment.
Downpayment, eh? Nice house, I guess. My house is worth considerably less than $350k total, but I'm sure lots of you high-rollers wouldn't deign to live in it.

[3LB]

Brilliant marketing...all they have to do is sell one or two pair to pay off any overhead. If they sell only four or five they'll be well off and you know some dudes will buy it...Pete Barnum says so.

I see guys commuting back and forth from their office jobs in 3/4 ton extended cab pick-up trucks and thats only because nobody makes a one-ton pick-up. $35K is nothing to spend on cables if a guy is willing to pay $50K for a truck he doesn't need and put up with the hassle that it is.

I guess in a way I admire the spunk of some of these exotic hi-fi snake oil salesman - the money is there for the taking and you won't find a more deserving clientel.

[audio amateur]

Downpayment, eh? Nice house, I guess. My house is worth considerably less than $350k total, but I'm sure lots of you high-rollers wouldn't deign to live in it.
I know that word in French, from the verb 'daigner' but I didn't know it existed in English. You learn something everyday I tell ya!

[audio amateur]

Listen to a carefully matched $350k system and you'll understand.
rw
Not sure I'll ever have the opportunity of doing so...

[E-Stat]

Not sure I'll ever have the opportunity of doing so...
It is like riding in a two seat F1. Walls disappear. You hear details from your favorite music that you had never before heard - even for stuff you've listened to countless times. You immediately hear rhythmic patterns that were never before rendered so plainly. I hope you are mistaken.

rw

[Feanor]

I know that word in French, from the verb 'daigner' but I didn't know it existed in English. You learn something everyday I tell ya!
According to Wiktionary it's from the French, "deignier". HERE' (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deign)s the link.

[audio amateur]

According to Wiktionary it's from the French, "deignier". HERE' (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deign)s the link.
If you read, it says that was the word in old french. I made a search for deignier which didn't yield anything. I'm pretty sure the verb is daigner.

[nightflier]

Oui, c'est daigner.

[JohnMichael]

$35K for speaker cables but that money would buy a nice swiss watch.

[E-Stat]

$35K for speaker cables but that money would buy a nice swiss watch.
There are quite a few, however, by companies like Patek Philipe, Brequet among others for which that wouldn't even begin to cover the cost.

Nice watches (http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/01/cx_ns_1201feat.html)

Click the slide show at the end of the article.

rw

[Feanor]

If you read, it says that was the word in old french. I made a search for deignier which didn't yield anything. I'm pretty sure the verb is daigner.
Yep, it's 'daigner' which appears in Wiktionnaire; 'deignier' doesn't.

The English synonym is 'condescend', although of course, there will be vocabulary-challenged who don't know what that means either.

[JohnMichael]

There are quite a few, however, by companies like Patek Philipe, Brequet among others for which that wouldn't even begin to cover the cost.

Nice watches (http://www.forbes.com/2004/12/01/cx_ns_1201feat.html)

Click the slide show at the end of the article.

rw



Very good article, thanks. I like when the Robb Report covers watches. I think for now I will stick with my Hamilton Jazzmaster Viewmatic with ETA 2824 "Elabore" automatic movement.

If I ever had the money for one of those watches I would have to select carefully. I would hate to discover that I no longer liked that style of watch. $500,000 of buyers remorse. Of course might sell it at a profit.

[audio amateur]

It is like riding in a two seat F1. Walls disappear. You hear details from your favorite music that you had never before heard - even for stuff you've listened to countless times. You immediately hear rhythmic patterns that were never before rendered so plainly. I hope you are mistaken.

rw
I'm pretty sure riding in an F1 would be the (much) more thrilling experience.
In all honesty though, 350K? You could almost buy a lifetime of tickets to the real thing with that kind of money...

[contrapunctus]

$35K ...:) Carumbah.

Well, I am selling a pair of silver-plated Oxygen Free Copper 2m length new Supra EFF-IX audio interconnects on ebay ... they are currently at a ridiculous $9.90 (compared to about US$200 retail) and auction ends in about 48 hours, so if you know about Swedish Supra, and like a bargain ... it's here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190375215706

[nightflier]

You could almost buy a lifetime of tickets to the real thing with that kind of money...

There is a point where the diminishing returns are outweighed by the lack of value that you're actually getting. If you can afford $350K, then why not go see the real orchestra every weekend for the rest of your life rather than try to reproduce it in your living room? These MIT cables are such a product, where the diminishing returns aren't even the issue anymore, compared to the absolute lunacy of spending that much on cables for fantasy technology, IMO.

And what is this technology anyhow? What can possibly be worth $35K in a cable? We're not talking about a piece of Lamm gear here, we're talking about a cable! Even if they were made of solid platinum and the box dangling off of them had a full PCB with the most expensive parts, I still fail to see how that would amount to $35K. Someone please explain to me what kind of magic these cables can produce that a top-of-the-line cable from a more realistic manufacturer can produce. What is MIT doing that the other guys are not? Do these cables really sound better or just an ever so slight nudge different? Or is that margin of supposed superiority just snake-oil?

[E-Stat]

Well, I am selling a pair of silver-plated Oxygen Free Copper 2m length new Supra EFF-IX audio interconnects...
So what are their LCR metrics?

rw

[Ajani]

There is a point where the diminishing returns are outweighed by the lack of value that you're actually getting. If you can afford $350K, then why not go see the real orchestra every weekend for the rest of your life rather than try to reproduce it in your living room? These MIT cables are such a product, where the diminishing returns aren't even the issue anymore, compared to the absolute lunacy of spending that much on cables for fantasy technology, IMO.

And what is this technology anyhow? What can possibly be worth $35K in a cable? We're not talking about a piece of Lamm gear here, we're talking about a cable! Even if they were made of solid platinum and the box dangling off of them had a full PCB with the most expensive parts, I still fail to see how that would amount to $35K. Someone please explain to me what kind of magic these cables can produce that a top-of-the-line cable from a more realistic manufacturer can produce. What is MIT doing that the other guys are not? Do these cables really sound better or just an ever so slight nudge different? Or is that margin of supposed superiority just snake-oil?

I'd rather spend $100K on concert tickets, than own a $100K setup... but I'm sure others will and do disagree... Who am I to tell them that they should not spend their $100K (or $350K) in that manner?

Value in HiFi can ONLY be determined by the individual purchaser...

[E-Stat]

I'd rather spend $100K on concert tickets, than own a $100K setup... but I'm sure others will and do disagree...
I certainly enjoy attending live concerts, but as a dedicated music junkie, I would find that approach way too limiting.

1. How do you choose to listen to content from decades ago? How would you hear the Beatles? Forget about them? Wait for the next oldies concert in your area?
2. How do you hear movie scores without the dialog? There are a number I like just hearing.
3. How do you actually get to hear the music and instruments that are butchered at a 120 db rock concert?
4. What if the nearest symphony orchestra is 100 miles away? I rather like spending more time listening than driving.

rw

[Ajani]

I certainly enjoy attending live concerts, but as a dedicated music junkie, I would find that approach way too limiting.

1. How do you choose to listen to content from decades ago? How would you hear the Beatles? Forget about them? Wait for the next oldies concert in your area?
2. How do you hear movie scores without the dialog? There are a number I like just hearing.
3. How do you actually get to hear the music and instruments that are butchered at a 120 db rock concert?
4. What if the nearest symphony orchestra is 100 miles away? I rather like spending more time listening than driving.

rw

Exactly! All valid reasons why someone would prefer to spend the extra money on HiFi... I'd "probably" settle for a $30K setup for all those issues and spend the remaining $70K to go out to live events... But then again, who knows what I'd actually spend that money on if I had it? So it's best to let the potential purchasers make the value decision themselves...

[GMichael]

Cables like these are very special. They have little mini boot camps inside, for the electrons traveling to your speakers. As each electron passes through they get insulted, beat down and then built up. This way, all the electrons are marching in order with no strays to through off your sound. You end up with a much more uniformed sound. No slop. The highs are REAL highs, and the lows are REAL lows.

[audio amateur]

I certainly enjoy attending live concerts, but as a dedicated music junkie, I would find that approach way too limiting.

1. How do you choose to listen to content from decades ago? How would you hear the Beatles? Forget about them? Wait for the next oldies concert in your area?
2. How do you hear movie scores without the dialog? There are a number I like just hearing.
3. How do you actually get to hear the music and instruments that are butchered at a 120 db rock concert?
4. What if the nearest symphony orchestra is 100 miles away? I rather like spending more time listening than driving.

rw
I knew you would respond with this :)
There is a obvious trade off in what I mentionned. Perhaps you can settle with a mid-fi system when you're not attending the real deal? Heck, with 350K your can certainly make room for a very decent system!

[GMichael]

I'd rather spend $100K on concert tickets, than own a $100K setup... but I'm sure others will and do disagree... Who am I to tell them that they should not spend their $100K (or $350K) in that manner?

Value in HiFi can ONLY be determined by the individual purchaser...

There are some who can spend over $100k on each, and then not even show up at all the concerts or turn their system on more than once a year.

[GMichael]

There is a point where the diminishing returns are outweighed by the lack of value that you're actually getting. If you can afford $350K, then why not go see the real orchestra every weekend for the rest of your life rather than try to reproduce it in your living room? These MIT cables are such a product, where the diminishing returns aren't even the issue anymore, compared to the absolute lunacy of spending that much on cables for fantasy technology, IMO.

And what is this technology anyhow? What can possibly be worth $35K in a cable? We're not talking about a piece of Lamm gear here, we're talking about a cable! Even if they were made of solid platinum and the box dangling off of them had a full PCB with the most expensive parts, I still fail to see how that would amount to $35K. Someone please explain to me what kind of magic these cables can produce that a top-of-the-line cable from a more realistic manufacturer can produce. What is MIT doing that the other guys are not? Do these cables really sound better or just an ever so slight nudge different? Or is that margin of supposed superiority just snake-oil?

It's the magic of being able to tell someone, "mine is better than yours."

[Ajani]

There are some who can spend over $100k on each, and then not even show up at all the concerts or turn their system on more than once a year.

As is their right... They can spend the money however they please...

When I was living in Toronto, I had easily the nicest looking kitchen of all my friends. The combination of Stainless Steel and Granite was breathtaking... Yet friends always joked about the fact that I rarely ever cooked...

Point is that I paid the rent, so it was my right (and mine alone) to use or just look at that kitchen (and I certainly enjoyed looking at it)... So even if someone wants to collect a $350K Stereo and use it like a sculpture, so what?

[GMichael]

As is their right... They can spend the money however they please...

When I was living in Toronto, I had easily the nicest looking kitchen of all my friends. The combination of Stainless Steel and Granite was breathtaking... Yet friends always joked about the fact that I rarely ever cooked...

Point is that I paid the rent, so it was my right (and mine alone) to use or just look at that kitchen (and I certainly enjoyed looking at it)... So even if someone wants to collect a $350K Stereo and use it like a sculpture, so what?

You mean like all those guys who spend $20k on a Harley and then never drive it? :shocked: Sure, they can do that. But it's my right to laugh at them.:ihih:

[Ajani]

You mean like all those guys who spend $20k on a Harley and then never drive it? :shocked: Sure, they can do that. But it's my right to laugh at them.:ihih:

Yep... you can always laugh.... but it's their money...

[E-Stat]

Heck, with 350K your can certainly make room for a very decent system!
The whole point is that some folks demand the highest levels of performance. Ferrari used to charge $10k for the carbon fiber brake option!

rw

[Ajani]

The whole point is that some folks demand the highest levels of performance. Ferrari used to charge $10k for the carbon fiber brake option!

rw

Many audiophiles (consumers in general, actually) look for best value for money, while others just want the absolute best...

[audio amateur]

The whole point is that some folks demand the highest levels of performance. And what I'm saying is that you regularly get to hear the real deal for that price.

Ferrari used to charge $10k for the carbon fiber brake option!
Are you saying 35k for a pair of cables is any less obscene ? I can see where the money is going in my carbon ceramic brakes, the technology of which is used in Formula 1. Can't say as much about them cables.

[E-Stat]

And what I'm saying is that you regularly get to hear the real deal for that price.
Such is a value statement. The equally obscenely priced Nordost Odins that I've heard are simply spectacular in their ability to retrieve detail. You're not going to find this (http://nordost.com/Odin-Supreme-Reference-Speaker-Cable-P33.asp) design as any OEM product to be relabeled.


Are you saying 35k for a pair of cables is any less obscene ? I can see where the money is going in my carbon ceramic brakes, the technology of which is used in Formula 1. Can't say as much about them cables.
You're looking at the wrong end. It is all about development cost, not just materials cost. Are you aware of how many hundreds of millions are spent so that an F1 racer can shave tenths of a second off its lap time? Do you see those changes? Many opamps can be manufactured for a buck or two. How many man hours of development, however, did the design and testing take? A lot more than a minute's worth of labor time might suggest.

rw

[nightflier]

It is all about development cost, not just materials cost. Are you aware of how many hundreds of millions are spent so that an F1 racer can shave tenths of a second off its lap time?

Sounds to me like Ferrari was trying to recoup some of those losses by getting suckers to pony up $10K for brake shoes. Kind of like Porsche making SUVs, as they admitted themselves. Whether that is the case or not, what is MIT trying to recoup? How much can realistically be spent on $35K cables research (excluding knowledge from previous cables). Likewise, those Odin cables are equally over-priced. So many people make the mistaken assumption that everything with a fancy name, good marketing, or a new model number must automatically be that much more expensive. While labor costs are indeed higher in some places (like the US and Europe), there is a point where this becomes ridiculously abusive.

[Ajani]

Sounds to me like Ferrari was trying to recoup some of those losses by getting suckers to pony up $10K for brake shoes. Kind of like Porsche making SUVs, as they admitted themselves. Whether that is the case or not, what is MIT trying to recoup? How much can realistically be spent on $35K cables research (excluding knowledge from previous cables). Likewise, those Odin cables are equally over-priced. So many people make the mistaken assumption that everything with a fancy name, good marketing, or a new model number must automatically be that much more expensive. While labor costs are indeed higher in some places (like the US and Europe), there is a point where this becomes ridiculously abusive.

Abusive of who or what? The guy with $35K to spend on a hobby? If the MIT cables do indeed sound better than all other cables, so what? If they sound no better than a standard pair of Blue Jeans Cables, so what? Who or what is being abused by the $35K price tag? Neither you nor I are footing the bill...

Let the buyer decide, whether the increase in performance (real or imagined) is worth it to him/her...

[E-Stat]

Sounds to me like Ferrari was trying to recoup some of those losses by getting suckers to pony up $10K for brake shoes.
Truly I don't understand why people who have never experienced the performance of something get all whipped up about the cost and whine about all the "suckers". Why spend $70M on a Gulfstream G5 when you can buy a faster Citation X for a third that?

rw

[Ajani]

It's the magic of being able to tell someone, "mine is better than yours."

Is that like the magic of being able to laugh at all the fools who pay big money for: "the same performance I got for a fraction of the cost"?

[GMichael]

Many audiophiles (consumers in general, actually) look for best value for money, while others just want the absolute best...

And some just want to spend the most so they can "say" they have the best.

[GMichael]

Is that like the magic of being able to laugh at all the fools who pay big money for: "the same performance I got for a fraction of the cost"?
Sounds like I hit a nerve.:ihih:

[Ajani]

Sounds like I hit a nerve.:ihih:

I don't own any expensive hi-fi, so you can't hit a nerve....

[Ajani]

And some just want to spend the most so they can "say" they have the best.

Some also want to claim that anything that costs more than they have spent is a rip-off and just audiophile jewelry...

Anyway you take it, there are @$$holes on both sides of the argument... whether it be the person who buys expensive gear for bragging rights or the guy who does nothing but start threads about how much of a ripoff expensive gear is (compared to his gear)...

[bfalls]

Exactly! All valid reasons why someone would prefer to spend the extra money on HiFi... I'd "probably" settle for a $30K setup for all those issues and spend the remaining $70K to go out to live events... But then again, who knows what I'd actually spend that money on if I had it? So it's best to let the potential purchasers make the value decision themselves...

Live performances are not always the best they can be. I have friends who are family to John Mellencamp and my wife and I have been invited to many of his performances. I recall one in Las Vegas at the Alladin which was absolutely great. It was the last of the tour and everyone was in synch, Mellenacamp, the band, the audience. It was the best I'd heard from him.

Later the same year he performed at about the same size venue on the campus of IU in Bloomington, Indiana and it was terrible. We had comparable seats, but the sound was much too loud and the bass was booming so much it hurt your ears and upset your stomach. I would have rather stayed home and listened to my rig.

It was a good experience overall. My wife and I were able to meet the band several times and his wife is a real sweetheart. John on the other hand----.

[GMichael]

Some also want to claim that anything that costs more than they have spent is a rip-off and just audiophile jewelry...

Anyway you take it, there are @$$holes on both sides of the argument... whether it be the person who buys expensive gear for bragging rights or the guy who does nothing but start threads about how much of a ripoff expensive gear is (compared to his gear)...

True. It is hard to swing a dead cat without hitting an @$$hole somewhere.

[nightflier]

Abusive of who or what? The guy with $35K to spend on a hobby? If the MIT cables do indeed sound better than all other cables, so what? If they sound no better than a standard pair of Blue Jeans Cables, so what? Who or what is being abused by the $35K price tag? Neither you nor I are footing the bill...

Let the buyer decide, whether the increase in performance (real or imagined) is worth it to him/her...

There is another point to be made here: one has to wonder whether a $30K cable from another manufacturer, like Nordost for example, actually sounds worse at all. Maybe it even sounds better? My guess is that they probably sound exactly the same, measure just the slightest tinge different, and the only real difference is brand-name bragging rights. But the price difference is significant (it certainly would buy a lot of music or concert tix).

Yes, these MIT cables probably sound fantastic, but so does a $30K cable. Where is the difference?

[Ajani]

There is another point to be made here: one has to wonder whether a $30K cable from another manufacturer, like Nordost for example, actually sounds worse at all. Maybe it even sounds better? My guess is that they probably sound exactly the same, measure just the slightest tinge different, and the only real difference is brand-name bragging rights. But the price difference is significant (it certainly would buy a lot of music or concert tix).

Yes, these MIT cables probably sound fantastic, but so does a $30K cable. Where is the difference?

While I see your point (as I don't drink the audiophile Kool-Aid), I still believe that it is up to the person who is deciding whether to spend $35K on a pair of cables, to determine if it is better than a $30K pair or even a $30 pair....

Price has little to do with anything in audio... Some products are expensive because they use expensive parts, others because of years or R&D costs (and limited production runs), some pay heavy import duties and taxes, others excessive profit margins... However, does anyone of those categories guarantee that a product will sound good? Nope, neither quality parts nor extensive R&D guarantees squat.. You might well prefer a product at the same price (with an excessive profit margin)....

But my point is that it is not for us to sit on the sidelines and judge MIT's cables... Since we have no idea what they sound like or are made of... Let the guy who wants to buy one make up his own mind...

[GMichael]

But my point is that it is not for us to sit on the sidelines and judge MIT's cables... Since we have no idea what they sound like or are made of... Let the guy who wants to buy one make up his own mind...

OK, but it's still fun to poke at them with a stick.

[nightflier]

Well I can't wait to read the Stereophile review on this one.

[emaidel]

What can possibly be worth $35K in a cable? We're not talking about a piece of Lamm gear here, we're talking about a cable! Even if they were made of solid platinum and the box dangling off of them had a full PCB with the most expensive parts, I still fail to see how that would amount to $35K. Someone please explain to me what kind of magic these cables can produce that a top-of-the-line cable from a more realistic manufacturer can produce. What is MIT doing that the other guys are not? Do these cables really sound better or just an ever so slight nudge different? Or is that margin of supposed superiority just snake-oil?

Amen to that, brother. $35K for speaker cables is one thing, and one thing only: ridiculous, conspicuous consumption for the super-wealthy. This is the type of item one would see on the USA network show, "Royal Pains," which does a splendid job illustrating the vacuuous, shallow mindset of the ultra-wealthy Hamptonites on Long Island's East End South Shore.

And here I am, wearing a lowly $4,000 Ebel watch that I actually thought was good.

[Ajani]

Amen to that, brother. $35K for speaker cables is one thing, and one thing only: ridiculous, conspicuous consumption for the super-wealthy. This is the type of item one would see on the USA network show, "Royal Pains," which does a splendid job illustrating the vacuuous, shallow mindset of the ultra-wealthy Hamptonites on Long Island's East End South Shore.

And here I am, wearing a lowly $4,000 Ebel watch that I actually thought was good.

So a $4K watch isn't ridiculous, conspicuous consumption? Does it tell time better than a $40 watch?

[emaidel]

So a $4K watch isn't ridiculous, conspicuous consumption? Does it tell time better than a $40 watch?

No, not really. It was a gift from my wife for my 50th birthday (15 years ago!) that still works perfectly. The crystal is made of an unusual material that, despite 24/7 use (including showering and swimming) has yet to develop a single scratch. And no gold "plating" has worn off, since the gold trim is all 18 kt. stuff.

I will be able to will this watch to my grandchildren.

[Ajani]

No, not really. It was a gift from my wife for my 50th birthday (15 years ago!) that still works perfectly. The crystal is made of an unusual material that, despite 24/7 use (including showering and swimming) has yet to develop a single scratch. And no gold "plating" has worn off, since the gold trim is all 18 kt. stuff.

I will be able to will this watch to my grandchildren.

I'm sure the $35K Cables are made of unusual material and can be willed to the owner's grandchildren as well...

At the end of the day, all of this HiFi (and jewelry, cars, etc) that we debate are just ridiculous, conspicuous consumption.... It's just a question of what each person determines to be 'ridiculous'... A $5K CD Player is OK to many audiophiles, but somehow a $50K one is ridiculous... Yet to an average person, a $50 DVD player will play CDs just fine, so a $5K CD Player is insane...

[poppachubby]

So a $4K watch isn't ridiculous, conspicuous consumption? Does it tell time better than a $40 watch?


The answer is most certainly, yes. Time pieces of that caliber are precision crafted and will most certainly keep time better than a wide range of cheaper watches. The watch I can understand. First it must be designed, then tooled, then assembled. All with utmost precision. The cables have the same process, although I don't see the precision being the same, but to the tune of $35K, c'mon...

I don't care about any liberal stuff concerning, "it's his money". It's overpriced and that's that.

[Ajani]

The answer is most certainly, yes. Time pieces of that caliber are precision crafted and will most certainly keep time better than a wide range of cheaper watches. The watch I can understand. First it must be designed, then tooled, then assembled. All with utmost precision. The cables have the same process, although I don't see the precision being the same, but to the tune of $35K, c'mon...

I don't care about any liberal stuff concerning, "it's his money". It's overpriced and that's that.

The point in bold is pure fantasy, as many persons who buy expensive watches know (some have learned the hard way), they often do not tell time better than a cheapo timex... Worse yet, considering that the watch is an obsolete invention as most persons check the time off their cellphone anyway...

So it is just a matter that you are paying for some pretty jewelry..

You can make it about liberal versus conservative or whatever, but the simple truth is that buying a pretty watch for an @$$load of cash is just as ridiculous as buying expensive HiFi... And laughing at one group while trying to defend the other really is also ridiculous..

Note: The right to spend your money as you please is a conservative view, not a liberal one....

[audio amateur]

You can make it about liberal versus conservative or whatever, but the simple truth is that buying a pretty watch for an @$$load of cash is just as ridiculous as buying expensive HiFi... And laughing at one group while trying to defend the other really is also ridiculous
That is not his point. A precision watch takes can take a heck of a time in man hours to assemble, not to mention the many critically machined parts (often made from dear materials) that are used in the assembly process. It doesn't take a genious to see that this isn't nearly the case in making a pair of interconnect cables. Because that is just what they are...

[Ajani]

That is not his point. A precision watch takes can take a heck of a time in man hours to assemble, not to mention the many critically machined parts that are used in the assembly process. It doesn't take a genious to see that this isn't nearly the case in making a pair of interconnect cables. Because that is just what they are...

So you quote one part of my response and claim that is not his point? Is that a joke?

Also, how do you know how many man hours were used to assemble the $35K Cables? Do you work at MIT? You are just on the sideline making assumptions...

Also, what does the labor hours have to do with whether the product tells time better?

If your attempt is to justify the price of the watch by cost of materials and labor hours, then there are many ultra-expensive HiFi products that can be justified based on that (maybe even the $35K cables can be justified based on materials and labor too - but that doesn't mean it sounds better than a cheaper cable)...

[audio amateur]

So you quote one part of my response and claim that is not his point? Is that a joke?
I am asserting his main point, which is not the precision of time keeping. Comparing digital to mechanical watches is essentially moot.

You are just on the sideline making assumptions...
Aren't we all at this point?

Also, what does the labor hours have to do with whether the product tells time better?
In theory, it should.

(maybe even the $35K cables can be justified based on materials and labor too - but that doesn't mean it sounds better than a cheaper cable)...
I agree.

[Ajani]

I am asserting his main point, which is not the precision of time keeping. Comparing digital to mechanical watches is essentially moot.

Aren't we all at this point?

In theory, it should.

I agree.

okkkkk....

So what exactly are the cables being condemned for? Is it performance or product cost?

If it's about performance (the claim that a $100 cable will sound the same or not much different), then the argument that a cheap digital watch (or better yet - the "free watch" in your cellphone) keeps time as well as a handcrafted work of art, from Switzerland, is applicable...

If it's about product cost (Materials, Labor, R&D, etc..), then truth is that none of us knows that as we neither work at MIT, nor have a pair of $35K Cables to dissect and inspect the materials.... So claiming that the product is ripoff based on product cost is ridiculous as there is no basis for estimating the cost...

I still fail to see why people accept that expensive handcrafted jewelry is worth loads of money, but expensive HiFi is not...

[GMichael]

okkkkk....

So what exactly are the cables being condemned for? Is it performance or product cost?

If it's about performance (the claim that a $100 cable will sound the same or not much different), then the argument that a cheap digital watch (or better yet - the "free watch" in your cellphone) keeps time as well as a handcrafted work of art, from Switzerland, is applicable...

If it's about product cost (Materials, Labor, R&D, etc..), then truth is that none of us knows that as we neither work at MIT, nor have a pair of $35K Cables to dissect and inspect the materials.... So claiming that the product is ripoff based on product cost is ridiculous as there is no basis for estimating the cost...

I still fail to see why people accept that expensive handcrafted jewelry is worth loads of money, but expensive HiFi is not...

It's the Average Joe view.

Mr. Average sees a $5k watch and can say, "Wow! That's fickin' nice. $5k huh? Seems a little high, but I bet it's worth it." (Same for high prices cars, homes etc...)
Then Mr. Average Joe sees $35k speaker wires and says. "WTF would get anyone in their right mind to spend that much on wire? It's just frikin' wire."

Write or wrong, that's the view that most people have.

[audio amateur]

Write or wrong, that's the view that most people have.
Even I would say that! And it's not like this isn't one of my hobbies.

[Ajani]

It's the Average Joe view.

Mr. Average sees a $5k watch and can say, "Wow! That's fickin' nice. $5k huh? Seems a little high, but I bet it's worth it." (Same for high prices cars, homes etc...)
Then Mr. Average Joe sees $35k speaker wires and says. "WTF would get anyone in their right mind to spend that much on wire? It's just frikin' wire."

Write or wrong, that's the view that most people have.

Clearly, that must be it.... All this reminds me of my ex-wife; she'd happily surprise me with a $1000 watch for my birthday, but would start a war if I suggested spending $1000 on an amp...

While I respect someone's right to buy a $5K watch, I just don't see any value in it personally, as I always check the time on my cellphone (even when I have on a watch - as jewelry)...

I think the issue is that luxury HiFi has gone out of style with the "Average Joe"... The Average Joe looks at you with envy if you drive a Mercedes or wear a Rolex, but laughs at you for owning a Krell or Conrad Johnson....

[Ajani]

Even I would say that! And it's not like this isn't one of my hobbies.

Yes, but (if I'm not mistaken) like many of us; you grew up essentially an Average Joe and developed an interest in HiFi... so you accept what most people see as 'value' and question HiFi more critically...

I strongly suspect that if owning a luxury watch wasn't a status symbol, then most people would say WTF??? when they saw a $5K watch for sale.... HiFi has no such allure to the masses and thus gets dissed for being so expensive...

[GMichael]

I think a large part of it is that wire is such a passive component. If you take a look at a set of speakers from say Legacy, you can see that you are getting a lot. The price may still seem high, but at least you are getting lots of drivers and very nice wood work. It may be a little harder for some of us to see a $10k set of bookshelf speakers and think they are worth it though. That takes first hand listening time.
But wire? It just lays there. All it does in conduct electrons to and fro. It's not that hard. There are no moving components like a speaker (or a watch, or car...).

Can $35k speaker wire be worth it? Maybe. But it's a little like saying that I have a $500 toothpick. Why the heck would something so simple cost so much? A $5k watch? Not for me. (I don't even have the cheapo watches) But with all those moving parts and fancy gizmos? Well...???

[poppachubby]

I still fail to see why people accept that expensive handcrafted jewelry is worth loads of money, but expensive HiFi is not...


We are discussing a watch, not jewelry in general. I think it is YOU who are assuming things. That a Patek or similar class is not a precision timepiece? You are sounding foolish now, and most certainly making assumptions.

Just look at the composition of a watch. Now look at the composition of a set of cables. Can you agree there's a world of difference? The cables aren't even in the shadow of a fine time piece. I am a machinist, I can assert these things WITHOUT the use of assumption.

Now I will drive my awesome Lamborghini with my bling, bling Patek and skillfully run over that $35K IC jerk, while Britney Spears' head is in my lap...

[Ajani]

We are discussing a watch, not jewelry in general. I think it is YOU who are assuming things. That a Patek or similar class is not a precision timepiece? You are sounding foolish now, and most certainly making assumptions.

Just look at the composition of a watch. Now look at the composition of a set of cables. Can you agree there's a world of difference? The cables aren't even in the shadow of a fine time piece. I am a machinist, I can assert these things WITHOUT the use of assumption.

Now I will drive my awesome Lamborghini with my bling, bling Patek and skillfully run over that $35K IC jerk, while Britney Spears' head is in my lap...

Am I suppose to respond to something in that post? All I see is that you have fantasies about driving a Lamborghini while either having a severed head in your lap or getting sexual satisfaction from some Celebrity...

My points are clear... and there is no point repeating them to you... But enjoy your Britney Spears sex fantasy and your precision timepiece!

[Ajani]

I think a large part of it is that wire is such a passive component. If you take a look at a set of speakers from say Legacy, you can see that you are getting a lot. The price may still seem high, but at least you are getting lots of drivers and very nice wood work. It may be a little harder for some of us to see a $10k set of bookshelf speakers and think they are worth it though. That takes first hand listening time.
But wire? It just lays there. All it does in conduct electrons to and fro. It's not that hard. There are no moving components like a speaker (or a watch, or car...).

Can $35k speaker wire be worth it? Maybe. But it's a little like saying that I have a $500 toothpick. Why the heck would something so simple cost so much? A $5k watch? Not for me. (I don't even have the cheapo watches) But with all those moving parts and fancy gizmos? Well...???

Problem with the argument of how simple its function is, is that the last thread I saw that complained about overpriced HiFi was about the Musical Fidelity Titan; a $30K Power Amp... And people were complaining just as much about the price of the amp in that thread, as persons in this thread are about cables...

The issue is people have little regard for HiFi in general... But other bling bling in the form of expensive cars, jewelry (including "precision timepieces"), clothes and houses are considered to be worth it somehow....

[nightflier]

Well then let's discuss the construction of those cables. I really want to know from some of you who know more about this, what can possibly cost $35K in a cable. Some of you have worked in manufacture, are engineers, and have years more experience than I have in audio. Certainly someone can better explain what is going on here.

Basically, I don't agree that we can't know what went into them because we don't work at MIT. It's just a cable with some box hanging off of them. Don't many other manufacturers have a similar configuration? I believe Mapleshade assisted in the construction of the Omega Mikro Planar Analog Ebony (http://www.omegamikro.com/Analog_Planar_Ebony.html). At a cool $2900, it's not chump change, but I've read that it is very well engineered, years of research went into them, and the company claims it will compete with MIT's best. So I ask, if a small outfit can design, manufacture, and distribute it for $2.8K, why can't a big company like MIT, with its vast resources and years of research, not do it for a smidgen less than $35K? Why not for a more respectable $5K? Is it simply that they already have a $5K cable?

[Ajani]

Well then let's discuss the construction of those cables. I really want to know from some of you who know more about this, what can possibly cost $35K in a cable. Some of you have worked in manufacture, are engineers, and have years more experience than I have in audio. Certainly someone can better explain what is going on here.

Basically, I don't agree that we can't know what went into them because we don't work at MIT. It's just a cable with some box hanging off of them. Don't many other manufacturers have a similar configuration? I believe Mapleshade assisted in the construction of the Omega Mikro Planar Analog Ebony (http://www.omegamikro.com/Analog_Planar_Ebony.html). At a cool $2900, it's not chump change, but I've read that it is very well engineered, years of research went into them, and the company claims it will compete with MIT's best. So I ask, if a small outfit can design, manufacture, and distribute it for $2.8K, why can't a big company like MIT, with its vast resources and years of research, not do it for a smidgen less than $35K? Why not for a more respectable $5K? Is it simply that they already have a $5K cable?

Now we're getting somewhere interesting: asking exactly what is in the box and how much R&D was done to warrant the $35K price tag is something that a potential buyer should ask (assuming he cares)...

However we still have some issues:

When you ask "Don't many other manufacturers have a similar configuration?".... the answer is 'yes' assuming that by similar configuration you mean "just a cable with some box hanging off of them"... A Hyundai is just a pile of metal with some rubber tires, as is a Bentley, so they could be deemed to be the same configuration as well...

Here's the real answer of what's in the box according to MIT


FAQs about MIT Interfaces
What's in the box? For over 20 years Bruce Brisson has been researching precisely what the function of a cable is. Simply put, a cable's job is to deliver the signal with frequency, amplitude and phase intact with no distortions of these critical relationships. After years of experimentation and receiving patents on sophisticated cable geometries, he concluded that only after applying network technology would he be able to accomplish that goal.

Inside the box is a series of complex networks comprised of passive components aimed at improving the cable's linearity. The result is easily heard as better bass, improved imaging and focus and more open highs.

Is it a crossover? No. The networks are designed to store and release current and voltage in proper relationships, but do not function as a filter. The cable networks are wired in parallel and do not impair any signal flow; thus, your components are directly connected with high quality materials.

Useful, right?

But let me ask you this: if MIT cracked open the box and justified the cost to you (including a reasonable profit margin), would you consider it to be any less 'ridiculous' an expenditure?

I actually had a similar debate on value with two writers from The Absolute Sound on their website, and they made it clear that they judge value based on "show me better (or presumably the same) for less" and not based on materials cost... So as long as nothing sounds better or the same as the MIT for less, then they consider it good value for money (regardless of how much it cost in materials and R&D).... Their argument being that they are all about sound quality and that the free market is what will prevent manufacturers from achieving ridiculous profit margins... Since any competitor can decide to produce a better cable than MIT for less and take MIT's customers (assuming MIT is making ridiculous profit margins)... That is how brands like Emotiva, Axiom, Oppo, Odyssey Audio, etc operate, isn't it? They believe they can make better products for less and clearly many consumers agree with them...

[audio amateur]

Clearly, it ain't the parts then. You're merely contributing to a fund towards his overdue 20 year research salary :crazy:

[Ajani]

Clearly, it ain't the parts then. You're merely contributing to a fund towards his overdue 20 year research salary :crazy:

Quite Possibly!!!

[emaidel]

Good Lord, has this thread ever gone waaayyyy off topic. The initial title was "$35K for speaker cables!" with the clear indication that that eye-popping price tag opened Pandora's box in terms of whether or not they were worth it. In my opinion, as well as that of some others, no freakin' way! That amount of money can buy a nice CAR, for krissakes!

A $35K automobile, while hardly outrageously expensive by today's standards, is still a pretty decent piece of machinery, taking hours and hours of labor, and thousands of parts to put together. Yes, the same can be said for a much cheaper car, but then a $35K car most definitely will be better appointed, be more comfortable to sit in and drive, and likely, outlast the cheaper car. In many respects, certain $35K cars are out and out "values."

One can't say the same thing for $35K speaker cables. Unless they're made of pure gold, or some other superexpensive material, there's just no reasonable explanation I can think of to justify the price. I'm sure they'll significantly outperform my $600 Z-Series cables, but certainly not enough to justify the difference in price between the two..

Insofar as my $4K (not $5K) watch, like pappa said, it's a "precison" timepiece, painstakingly and lovingly assembled in Switzerland. In the 15 years that I've owned it, it hasn't lost or gained a second (save the few times the battery had to be replaced), which I don't think can be said of a Timex (are they still around?), or a $200 Seiko. While not a "value," it's worth every cent of its price, and will likely outlast me, my step-children, and my grandchildren. And, those grandchildren can expect the crystal to be as clear and scratch-free as it still is since the day I received it.

I know this won't satisfy everyone, but it's my opinion, for whatever that may be worth.

[nightflier]

So basically what's in the box is all passive & simple, but more importantly does not change the signal. So how does that justify a $35K price tag?


When you ask "Don't many other manufacturers have a similar configuration?".... the answer is 'yes' assuming that by similar configuration you mean "just a cable with some box hanging off of them"... A Hyundai is just a pile of metal with some rubber tires, as is a Bentley, so they could be deemed to be the same configuration as well...

As with the watch examples mentioned by others, and my poor attempt at pointing this out with my Lamm reference, a Hyundai is infinitely more complex than a cable. I would suggest that a cable is a lot closer to GMichael's toothpick than a Bentley or a Ferrari. If we're going to talk about manufacturing, let's be honest and admit that.


But let me ask you this: if MIT cracked open the box and justified the cost to you (including a reasonable profit margin), would you consider it to be any less 'ridiculous' an expenditure?

How could they even begin to justify $35K? The point is they couldn't and they won't. The closer the reviewers and the public get to understanding what kind of snake the oil came from, the worse this process of unveiling the hocus pocus becomes for the manufacturer. The fact is, it's not something they will ever be able to justify.


Their argument being that they are all about sound quality and that the free market is what will prevent manufacturers from achieving ridiculous profit margins...

Pigs will fly sooner than the day the free market will prevent manufacturers from achieving ridiculous profit margins. As prices for products reach the stratosphere of their market sector, the free market disappears entirely. That is, at these prices there is no free market or competition, nor are there any controls or regulations - it is the polar opposite of the free market.


Since any competitor can decide to produce a better cable than MIT for less and take MIT's customers (assuming MIT is making ridiculous profit margins)... That is how brands like Emotiva, Axiom, Oppo, Odyssey Audio, etc operate, isn't it? They believe they can make better products for less and clearly many consumers agree with them...

None of these manufacturers compete in that price segment. The ones that do, like Nordost, mentioned before, are a small club of jewelry and toy makers mostly for clients who are neither very discerning nor interested. Since reviewers are given unrealistic discounts (sometimes as much as 80% and even free), they don't count.

Those very few gifted experts (the specialists, the golden-eared, people in the audio industry, etc.) who do travel in those circles (and still receive discounts), buy the products not because they are necessarily better, but rather because the products may have a certain quality or attribute that appeals to their sensibilities in very specific systems. Take the YG Acoustics Anat Reference II speakers (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10196723-47.html), at a comparatively low $107,000, for example. Those that have paid the full price for them (not the musicians pictured in their ads), choose this speaker for a few infinitely minute qualities and abilities that are typically only revealed on equally expensive gear and listening rooms that they happen to own. It may even be the case that this difference is so infinitesimal that it exists only in their heads, but to them it's real and so they pay for it. All that being said, those people represent an extremely small portion of the customer base for extravagantly-priced audio gear purchased new at full price - the vast majority of the customers simply have money to burn and want bragging rights.

And this supports my point that at this price point, the cable isn't necessarily better than one that costs the same, a bit less, or even half as much. It just sounds ever so slightly different. This also negates the claim that that little box does not color the signal just a smidgen (for them to be different enough to justify it). In any case, it's overpriced for what it is. $35K for a watch, a Lamm preamp, or even a car, is a totally different argument because of the complexity involved in manufacturing those components, and the complete lack thereof in a pair of cables.

[GMichael]

My toothpicks are only $500. That represents a significant savings over $35,000. How many would you like? Any orders over 50 pieces will receive a whopping 5% discount. I'll even pick up the freight.
How's that for a free market?

[Ajani]

So basically what's in the box is all passive & simple, but more importantly does not change the signal. So how does that justify a $35K price tag?



As with the watch examples mentioned by others, and my poor attempt at pointing this out with my Lamm reference, a Hyundai is infinitely more complex than a cable. I would suggest that a cable is a lot closer to GMichael's toothpick than a Bentley or a Ferrari. If we're going to talk about manufacturing, let's be honest and admit that.



How could they even begin to justify $35K? The point is they couldn't and they won't. The closer the reviewers and the public get to understanding what kind of snake the oil came from, the worse this process of unveiling the hocus pocus becomes for the manufacturer. The fact is, it's not something they will ever be able to justify.



Pigs will fly sooner than the day the free market will prevent manufacturers from achieving ridiculous profit margins. As prices for products reach the stratosphere of their market sector, the free market disappears entirely. That is, at these prices there is no free market or competition, nor are there any controls or regulations - it is the polar opposite of the free market.



None of these manufacturers compete in that price segment. The ones that do, like Nordost, mentioned before, are a small club of jewelry and toy makers mostly for clients who are neither very discerning nor interested. Since reviewers are given unrealistic discounts (sometimes as much as 80% and even free), they don't count.

Those very few gifted experts (the specialists, the golden-eared, people in the audio industry, etc.) who do travel in those circles (and still receive discounts), buy the products not because they are necessarily better, but rather because the products may have a certain quality or attribute that appeals to their sensibilities in very specific systems. Take the YG Acoustics Anat Reference II speakers (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10196723-47.html), at a comparatively low $107,000, for example. Those that have paid the full price for them (not the musicians pictured in their ads), choose this speaker for a few infinitely minute qualities and abilities that are typically only revealed on equally expensive gear and listening rooms that they happen to own. It may even be the case that this difference is so infinitesimal that it exists only in their heads, but to them it's real and so they pay for it. All that being said, those people represent an extremely small portion of the customer base for extravagantly-priced audio gear purchased new at full price - the vast majority of the customers simply have money to burn and want bragging rights.

And this supports my point that at this price point, the cable isn't necessarily better than one that costs the same, a bit less, or even half as much. It just sounds ever so slightly different. This also negates the claim that that little box does not color the signal just a smidgen (for them to be different enough to justify it). In any case, it's overpriced for what it is. $35K for a watch, a Lamm preamp, or even a car, is a totally different argument because of the complexity involved in manufacturing those components, and the complete lack thereof in a pair of cables.

WTH is in a watch to Justify $35K? Platinum and Diamonds??? Does that make the time any more accurate? Is the performance in anyway worth the difference over a $350 watch???

The point I've tried to make is that you guys will make a big stink over HiFi components costing obscene amounts, but accept all kind of excessive prices in other luxury goods... You have an issue with reviewers and elitists buying cables for some barely noticeable improvement in sound, but you accept that a $35K watch offers some kind of improvement over a $350 or even a $35 watch... Nonsense! A man buys a $35K watch because it is a hand crafted work of art (and possibly just to show he is a rich dou..bag), not because it's performance in anyway justifies its price-tag... So why can't an audiophile buy an expensive cable?

And even when you go back to the cable being like a toothpick, my question is: do you believe an Amplifier can be worth $35K? Many persons claim there is nothing to justify an amp costing so much (and an amp is a lot more complicated than a toothpick or a cable or even a wa...)

[Ajani]

My toothpicks are only $500. That represents a significant savings over $35,000. How many would you like? Any orders over 50 pieces will receive a whopping 5% discount. I'll even pick up the freight.
How's that for a free market?

That's fine, if you can get someone to buy $500 toothpicks, then good luck with that...

[nightflier]

I don't think you can extricate just performance for this argument. The manufacturing, or in the case of the cable, the dearth of manufacturing, is intricately linked to performance. As a component becomes more complex, more things can affect performance.


do you believe an Amplifier can be worth $35K? Many persons claim there is nothing to justify an amp costing so much (and an amp is a lot more complicated than a toothpick or a cable or even a wa...)

I do believe it, although it needn't be that expensive for my needs.

[Ajani]

Good Lord, has this thread ever gone waaayyyy off topic. The initial title was "$35K for speaker cables!" with the clear indication that that eye-popping price tag opened Pandora's box in terms of whether or not they were worth it. In my opinion, as well as that of some others, no freakin' way! That amount of money can buy a nice CAR, for krissakes!

A $35K automobile, while hardly outrageously expensive by today's standards, is still a pretty decent piece of machinery, taking hours and hours of labor, and thousands of parts to put together. Yes, the same can be said for a much cheaper car, but then a $35K car most definitely will be better appointed, be more comfortable to sit in and drive, and likely, outlast the cheaper car. In many respects, certain $35K cars are out and out "values."

One can't say the same thing for $35K speaker cables. Unless they're made of pure gold, or some other superexpensive material, there's just no reasonable explanation I can think of to justify the price. I'm sure they'll significantly outperform my $600 Z-Series cables, but certainly not enough to justify the difference in price between the two..

Insofar as my $4K (not $5K) watch, like pappa said, it's a "precison" timepiece, painstakingly and lovingly assembled in Switzerland. In the 15 years that I've owned it, it hasn't lost or gained a second (save the few times the battery had to be replaced), which I don't think can be said of a Timex (are they still around?), or a $200 Seiko. While not a "value," it's worth every cent of its price, and will likely outlast me, my step-children, and my grandchildren. And, those grandchildren can expect the crystal to be as clear and scratch-free as it still is since the day I received it.

I know this won't satisfy everyone, but it's my opinion, for whatever that may be worth.

It is your right to determine if your $4K watch is worth it to you... While I appreciate the exquisite craftsmanship and selection of materials involved in making such a watch, I don't personally see it as being worth the money... But who cares whether I think it is, you're the person who made the purchase...

$4K for a speaker cable is not worth it to me either, because I'd rather buy a pair of Speakers for that money and use some sub $200 speaker cables with them... But once again, who cares what I personally think it is worth... The man with the $4K should be allowed to make that decision himself...

It's not for me to tell you whether a watch, cable, phone or pair of jeans is worth $4K... That's a decision you make on your own...

I just find it amusing how willing we are to accept extreme prices for some products but are so offended by the prices of others...

An excellent condition copy of the first appearance of Superman sold recently for $1M... A Picasso print (not original) sells for an exorbitant amount of money... A bottle of wine can cost thousands... Yet we casually accept so many of these things...

[Ajani]

I don't think you can extricate just performance for this argument. The manufacturing, or in the case of the cable, the dearth of manufacturing, is intricately linked to performance. As a component becomes more complex, more things can affect performance.



I do believe it, although it needn't be that expensive for my needs.

So then we get to the question of what's the maximum you think an amp should sell for? and Also what's the maximum a pair of speaker cables should sell for?

Price is determined by what consumers are willing to pay... Why should a painting sell for $200,000??? Did the artist really put that much time and materials into the piece to justify such a price tag? If someone thinks that "10 years of the MIT founder's time for research" justifies the cost of the cable, then who am I to argue with him?

[nightflier]

If MIT spent every day of those 10 years at developing just these cables, then I suppose it's a bargain, but we all know that's not even close to being the case.

I'd pay quite a bit for art (and I have) but that's again, a totally different subject - just like the watch, amp and car - completely different levels of complexity.

What I have such a hard time with is that something should cost what people will pay for it. This is nonsense. There will always be suckers, but at the $35K price point for cables, there is no such thing as market competition. That people are gullible enough to pay for it doesn't at all address whether these cables really are worth $35K. More importantly, that kind of blind extravagance leads me to believe that they probably wouldn't hear a difference from any other cable and probably couldn't care either way.

(I am politely excluding that very small percentage of rich specialists who believe they do hear a difference under their own very unique set of circumstances - more power to them).

[Ajani]

If MIT spent every day of those 10 years at developing just these cables, then I suppose it's a bargain, but we all know that's not even close to being the case.

I'd pay quite a bit for art (and I have) but that's again, a totally different subject - just like the watch, amp and car - completely different levels of complexity.

What I have such a hard time with is that something should cost what people will pay for it. This is nonsense. There will always be suckers, but at the $35K price point for cables, there is no such thing as market competition. That people are gullible enough to pay for it doesn't at all address whether these cables really are worth $35K. More importantly, that kind of blind extravagance leads me to believe that they probably wouldn't hear a difference from any other cable and probably couldn't care either way.

(I am politely excluding that very small percentage of rich specialists who believe they do hear a difference under their own very unique set of circumstances - more power to them).

Art prices are about complexity then? So when an unknown artist spends an entire week painting a forest scene in order to capture each detail of the scenery and gets a meager $150 for his painting, while a renown artist splashes a yellow dot on a white canvas and sells that work for $15K, that's an issue of complexity?

The reason so many accept art prices is because we have been socialized to believe that these things represent having refined and exquisite tastes... much like wine, watches and cars... Audio is scrutinized and insulted because it is not regarded the same way (at least in the western world!)...

IMO, there is absolutely nothing to justify why a painting should cost $35K, but a cable shouldn't... The materials cost of the cable is likely far more expensive than paint and a canvas... and the actual man hours whether for R&D or hand assembly are possibly much greater too...

[poppachubby]

The funny thing about those MIT guys, is they would do the research for free. I'm sure a fun weekend for them is snuggling with a calculator and microscope.

[emaidel]

Ajani, you seem to think that those of us reponding to this thread feel high prices are justified for anything and everything except audio equipment, and that's just not so.

Criticizing prices for works of art is a bit silly, since art collectors and museums aren't, and never have been, concerned about how much time it took to paint a certain painting, how much the paint itself cost, and such. The value of many artworks is an intangible, and "worth it" to those involved either in the industry, or as collectors. I suspect the original of the Mona Lisa, should it ever become available for sale, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but it surely didn't cost da Vinci anywhere near that to paint it. Does that make the price "ridiculous?" Of course not.

What most of us here have a problem with is a matter of degree. I will happily pay hundreds of dollars for speaker cables, and audio interconnects, and have done so many times. I also have paid thousands for amplification. But I will NOT pay anything near $35K for a set of wires, no matter how "exotic" they may be, because I simply refuse to believe they can offer anywhere near the level of performance such a high price commands.

I drive a Mercedes E-class automobile. "Conspicuous consumption?" Hardly.

We purchased a 1997 E-420 as a used "Starmark" vehicle in 2001. Today, with over 222,000 miles on it, it's still tight as a drum, drives and handles superbly, and due to my slavish attention to the finish of the car, inside and out, it could still sit on the showroom floor. Routine servicing is done by a competent shop that specializes in Mercedes and BMW automobiles.

New, the car retailed for $54,000. That's still expensive, even today. Was it worth it? By your standards, no, since you seem to object to anything that's expensive as "excess." To me, the answer is a definite, "Yes, it is." Would a 1997 Camry, Accord, Taurus or Impala have held up as well? I hardly think so. That doesn't mean those cars are "junk,." What it means is that the high price for the E-420 was justified.

$35K for speakers cables isn't.

[poppachubby]

Ajani, you seem to think that those of us reponding to this thread feel high prices are justified for anything and everything except audio equipment, and that's just not so.

Criticizing prices for works of art is a bit silly, since art collectors and museums aren't, and never have been, concerned about how much time it took to paint a certain painting, how much the paint itself cost, and such. The value of many artworks is an intangible, and "worth it" to those involved either in the industry, or as collectors. I suspect the original of the Mona Lisa, should it ever become available for sale, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but it surely didn't cost da Vinci anywhere near that to paint it. Does that make the price "ridiculous?" Of course not.

What most of us here have a problem with is a matter of degree. I will happily pay hundreds of dollars for speaker cables, and audio interconnects, and have done so many times. I also have paid thousands for amplification. But I will NOT pay anything near $35K for a set of wires, no matter how "exotic" they may be, because I simply refuse to believe they can offer anywhere near the level of performance such a high price commands.

I drive a Mercedes E-class automobile. "Conspicuous consumption?" Hardly.

We purchased a 1997 E-420 as a used "Starmark" vehicle in 2001. Today, with over 222,000 miles on it, it's still tight as a drum, drives and handles superbly, and due to my slavish attention to the finish of the car, inside and out, it could still sit on the showroom floor. Routine servicing is done by a competent shop that specializes in Mercedes and BMW automobiles.

New, the car retailed for $54,000. That's still expensive, even today. Was it worth it? By your standards, no, since you seem to object to anything that's expensive as "excess." To me, the answer is a definite, "Yes, it is." Would a 1997 Camry, Accord, Taurus or Impala have held up as well? I hardly think so. That doesn't mean those cars are "junk,." What it means is that the high price for the E-420 was justified.

$35K for speakers cables isn't.

Well put. +1 here...

[GMichael]

That's fine, if you can get someone to buy $500 toothpicks, then good luck with that...

If someone wants to spend it, well.... it is their money. They have that right.

[Ajani]

Ajani, you seem to think that those of us reponding to this thread feel high prices are justified for anything and everything except audio equipment, and that's just not so.

Criticizing prices for works of art is a bit silly, since art collectors and museums aren't, and never have been, concerned about how much time it took to paint a certain painting, how much the paint itself cost, and such. The value of many artworks is an intangible, and "worth it" to those involved either in the industry, or as collectors. I suspect the original of the Mona Lisa, should it ever become available for sale, would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but it surely didn't cost da Vinci anywhere near that to paint it. Does that make the price "ridiculous?" Of course not.

What most of us here have a problem with is a matter of degree. I will happily pay hundreds of dollars for speaker cables, and audio interconnects, and have done so many times. I also have paid thousands for amplification. But I will NOT pay anything near $35K for a set of wires, no matter how "exotic" they may be, because I simply refuse to believe they can offer anywhere near the level of performance such a high price commands.

I drive a Mercedes E-class automobile. "Conspicuous consumption?" Hardly.

We purchased a 1997 E-420 as a used "Starmark" vehicle in 2001. Today, with over 222,000 miles on it, it's still tight as a drum, drives and handles superbly, and due to my slavish attention to the finish of the car, inside and out, it could still sit on the showroom floor. Routine servicing is done by a competent shop that specializes in Mercedes and BMW automobiles.

New, the car retailed for $54,000. That's still expensive, even today. Was it worth it? By your standards, no, since you seem to object to anything that's expensive as "excess." To me, the answer is a definite, "Yes, it is." Would a 1997 Camry, Accord, Taurus or Impala have held up as well? I hardly think so. That doesn't mean those cars are "junk,." What it means is that the high price for the E-420 was justified.

$35K for speakers cables isn't.

Nope, you still don't get my point:

I don't object to anything (you guys are the ones who object to expensive cables)... Whether your Mercedes or your watch is worth it should be your decision and not mine... I am just saying that the same courtesy should apply to HiFi...

Why do persons feel it's OK to laugh at someone for buying very expensive HiFi and yet feel offended if someone else questions the value of their car, watch or art?

The same way you feel that your watch and car are worth their high price tags, a golden eared audiophile feels that his expensive cables are worth theirs... So why is he ridiculed and you are defended?

The same way that some persons may buy a Mercedes because they love the car, while others will buy one just to show that they have money; is the way that some audiophiles will buy an expensive cable because they believe the performance is worth it, while others will buy it just to show off...

Anyway, I've made my points enough time in this thread... So clearly all I'm doing at this point is repeating myself... For those who still don't agree with me and think we should all ridicule persons who buy expensive cables, then we just have to agree to disagree at this point...

[02audionoob]

One man's excess is another man's pocket change. If someone has the disposable income to spend $35,000 on speaker cables, I want them to do it. It's better for us all if that money is floating around the economy rather than sitting in one person's bank account.

[GMichael]

Nope, you still don't get my point:

I don't object to anything (you guys are the ones who object to expensive cables)... Whether your Mercedes or your watch is worth it should be your decision and not mine... I am just saying that the same courtesy should apply to HiFi...

Why do persons feel it's OK to laugh at someone for buying very expensive HiFi and yet feel offended if someone else questions the value of their car, watch or art?

The same way you feel that your watch and car are worth their high price tags, a golden eared audiophile feels that his expensive cables are worth theirs... So why is he ridiculed and you are defended?

The same way that some persons may buy a Mercedes because they love the car, while others will buy one just to show that they have money; is the way that some audiophiles will buy an expensive cable because they believe the performance is worth it, while others will buy it just to show off...

Anyway, I've made my points enough time in this thread... So clearly all I'm doing at this point is repeating myself... For those who still don't agree with me and think we should all ridicule persons who buy expensive cables, then we just have to agree to disagree at this point...

I think that the point you seem to miss (or at least haven't acknowledged) is that there is a lot more involved with building a car or watch than a wire or toothpick.

[Ajani]

I think that the point you seem to miss (or at least haven't acknowledged) is that there is a lot more involved with building a car or watch than a wire or toothpick.

Nope, I have not missed that... and how do you know that there is more involved in a watch than in the "magic box" attached to the MIT cables?

Complexity alone is not justification for cost...

Is a watch more complex than an iMac???? Nope, so why do so many watches cost substantially more than the most expensive iMac? Is a watch more useful than an iMac??? Hell No! But persons will pay excessive amounts for a Platinum and Diamond watch but would be utterly pissed if a more expensive iMac model is released.... It's just a matter of what people have been socialized to accept... If I buy a Platinum and Diamond Watch for $10K, I have refined tastes and appreciation for the finer things in life, but If I bought a suped up iMac for that money, I'd be a dope....


Anyway, as I said before: Let's agree to disagree... and I will leave this and future bashing threads to persons who wish to do so....

[GMichael]

Nope, I have not missed that... and how do you know that there is more involved in a watch than in the "magic box" attached to the MIT cables?

Complexity alone is not justification for cost...

Is a watch more complex than an iMac???? Nope, so why do so many watches cost substantially more than the most expensive iMac? Is a watch more useful than an iMac??? Hell No! But persons will pay excessive amounts for a Platinum and Diamond watch but would be utterly pissed if a more expensive iMac model is released.... It's just a matter of what people have been socialized to accept... If I buy a Platinum and Diamond Watch for $10K, I have refined tastes and appreciation for the finer things in life, but If I bought a suped up iMac for that money, I'd be a dope....


Anyway, as I said before: Let's agree to disagree... and I will leave this and future bashing threads to persons who wish to do so....

Do you really think that magic box is more complicated than a car or watch?

As far as Ipods, I'm sure if you made one out of gold and diamonds, someone would buy them. (I'd laugh at that too)

Nobody is saying that people can't spend their money any way they want. We're just laughing at $35k for a wire.

[Feanor]

One man's excess is another man's pocket change. If someone has the disposable income to spend $35,000 on speaker cables, I want them to do it. It's better for us all if that money is floating around the economy rather than sitting in one person's bank account.
Or they could donate it to help people when their unemployment or health coverage expires due to a$$holes the US Congress.

I think it's time we end the hypocrasy that personal spending on extravagances of dubious value is as economically beneficial as directly helping people to eat and get medical treatment.

[GMichael]

Or they could donate it to help people when their unemployment or health coverage expires due to a$$holes the US Congress.

I think it's time we end the hypocrasy that personal spending on extravagances of dubious value is as economically beneficial as directly helping people to eat and get medical treatment.

It would help my family if they started buying my toothpicks.

[Ajani]

Or they could donate it to help people when their unemployment or health coverage expires due to a$$holes the US Congress.

I think it's time we end the hypocrasy that personal spending on extravagances of dubious value is as economically beneficial as directly helping people to eat and get medical treatment.

Damn, I hate how my lack of self control refuses to let me stay out of this thread :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

But this always reminds me of some of my favourite lyrics from "Praying for Time" by George Michael:


This is the year of the hungry man
Whose place is in the past
Hand in hand with ignorance
And legitimate excuses

The rich declare themselves poor
And most of us are not sure
If we have too much
But we'll take our chances
Because god's stopped keeping score

I find it to be an apt description of most of us (middle class)... When do you have too much??? I only own a humble $2K pair of speakers, so that's not extravagant... The guy with the $20K pair has too much... Yeah sure... Tell that to the homeless man... Tell him that a $4K watch is a justifiable expenditure...

At the end of the day, we all choose to deny that we have more than we need, but we are quick to point fingers at the excesses of persons with more than us...

[poppachubby]

I believe the children are our future, teach them well and...

[Ajani]

I believe the children are our future, teach them well and...
let them lead the way... show them all the beauty they posses inside... :8:

I love sing alongs!!! Now let's all join hands and sing together as one Audiophile community!!!

[Luvin Da Blues]

let them lead the way... show them all the beauty they posses inside... :8:

I love sing alongs!!! Now let's all join hands and sing together as one Audiophile community!!!

Kumbayah, My Lord, Kumbayah

[audio amateur]

I think it's time we end the hypocrasy that personal spending on extravagances of dubious value is as economically beneficial as directly helping people to eat and get medical treatment.
You are absolutely right. It's not because one has the money that one should spend it mindlessly.

[nightflier]

...and how do you know that there is more involved in a watch than in the "magic box" attached to the MIT cables?

On the one hand MIT claims it doesn't do anything to the sound, and at the same time they say it's extremely complex stuff developed from years of research. That flies in the face of everything we know about hi-fi: complexity is the very source of coloration. Something doesn't add up, here.

[Ajani]

On the one hand MIT claims it doesn't do anything to the sound, and at the same time they say it's extremely complex stuff developed from years of research. That flies in the face of everything we know about hi-fi: complexity is the very source of coloration. Something doesn't add up, here.

A reviewer (from Stereophile, I think) once said that he never reviewed cables because he regarded them as just expensive tone controls...

Personally, I am deeply suspicious of what is actually in the box...

[Ajani]

You are absolutely right. It's not because one has the money that one should spend it mindlessly.

Fine. So at what point does it become mindless? And who has the right to determine that point? You? Me? Rich? Middle-Class? Poor?

[audio amateur]

I think we can both agree that a 35K pair of speaker cables enters the mindless category.

[GMichael]

Fine. So at what point does it become mindless? And who has the right to determine that point? You? Me? Rich? Middle-Class? Poor?

Can I pick?

[Ajani]

I think we can both agree that a 35K pair of speaker cables enters the mindless category.

Nope... we don't agree on that.... I'd never spend that much money on cables, but I wouldn't call it mindless either...

As for how people spend money:

I believe in encouraging people to give to the less fortunate, but not in condemning the purchases of those persons who have more money than me... As I'm not interested in those with less money than me, condemning me for my purchases....

I don't see that any of us has a right to point fingers at others, while indulging in our own money wasting activities...

[Ajani]

Can I pick?

:hand:

[frenchmon]

I think we can both agree that a 35K pair of speaker cables enters the mindless category.

Not to a person who has the money to burn....like Oprah!

IF I had millions, I would do it in a heart beat.


fenchmon

[audio amateur]

IF I had millions, I would do it in a heart beat.


fenchmon
You would?

[klif570]

Not to a person who has the money to burn....like Oprah!

IF I had millions, I would do it in a heart beat.


fenchmon

Would you also buy a 24k gold mains socket for 20k? lol

[Feanor]

...

As for how people spend money:

I believe in encouraging people to give to the less fortunate, but not in condemning the purchases of those persons who have more money than me... As I'm not interested in those with less money than me, condemning me for my purchases....

I don't see that any of us has a right to point fingers at others, while indulging in our own money wasting activities...
BTW, Ajani, I agree with you that how people spend their money is their business. And certainly we all spend money frivolously.

Earlier, in suggesting one might give $35k to charity rather than to a cable hawker, I was only mentioning it as an alternative. In fact there are a minority of people who would actually get more satisfaction giving to charity. I'm not saying that I personally would give to charity, much less that I am judging charity-givers better people. After all, likely they doing it for the selfish reason of popular or self approbation.

However what I was earlier questioning from an ethical perspective was the economic argument that all consumption is equal. This might be true in terms of economic stimulation, but it isn't an moral justification for self-indulgence at a time when others are suffering.

[audio amateur]

After all, likely they doing it for the selfish reason of popular or self approbation.
Better that not giving at all, right?

[Ajani]

Better that not giving at all, right?

Yes it is... but I think the real point is to not start patting ourselves on the back for minor contributions we make, while pointing fingers at others....

Yesterday I went into town to the bank, to make a wire transfer of 400 USD (shipping included) to Emotiva for a UPA-2 Amp... Now even the stingiest anti-audiophile among us is unlikely to give me grief for buying a $300 amp (heck, Pix owns one!)... On the way from the bank, I stopped in BK and bought a burger... I dropped my change into the Haiti relief fund can on the counter.... I left BK and walked through town, and passed a homeless man lying dead on the side of the road... Now I can give myself a huge pat on the back for dropping some spare change in the Haiti Relief fund, and ignore the fact that had I given that 400 USD to that homeless guy when I got paid last month, he might not be dead... It's not like I really need the amp... I have an excellent sounding $2K Headphone setup and a very decent sounding set of $400 active speakers already... and even if I didn't, I still wouldn't "need" the amp...

So I don't see how I can realistically sit here and claim the guy spending loads of money on cables or art or watches or cars is being brainless or selfish, when I'm wasting money on stuff I like...

[Ajani]

BTW, Ajani, I agree with you that how people spend their money is their business. And certainly we all spend money frivolously.

Earlier, in suggesting one might give $35k to charity rather than to a cable hawker, I was only mentioning it as an alternative. In fact there are a minority of people who would actually get more satisfaction giving to charity. I'm not saying that I personally would give to charity, much less that I am judging charity-givers better people. After all, likely they doing it for the selfish reason of popular or self approbation.

However what I was earlier questioning from an ethical perspective was the economic argument that all consumption is equal. This might be true in terms of economic stimulation, but it isn't an moral justification for self-indulgence at a time when others are suffering.

I do agree that there is a significant difference between donating to charity and buying expensive toys in order to "help the economy"...

I don't believe in 'trickle down economics'... It's like thinking that if your company gets more customers (and profit) that it means the boss will give you all raises or even employ more workers... It might happen, but often it doesn't or at least not proportionately... so your boss may get a lot richer and you may see a slight increase in pay (or none at all) but a whole lot more work...

[Hyfi]

Interesting debate going on here. The bottom line is, most people with expendable cash tend to buy expensive items, not kmart items whether the item is any better than the other or not.

I am sure the 35K cable is a bit better than the $50 Blue jean but in no way is it 3500 times better and anyone with a brain would agree.

I have some friends with money and they do it all the time. They look down on us frugal people while spending way too much for a similar item of similar quality. They could not possibly admit to shopping at kmart, they had to buy the same thing at Nordstroms.

Now onto expensive cables. With the components I am currently using, I also got a pair of Synergistic Research Signature II speaker cables which are 16 feet long due to the location the original owners system was. I really only need about 6 feet and inquired about splitting the cables to make 2 8 foot pairs both randomly and through Synergistic. I don't see anything special but then I am not a cable termination expert.

The original owner spent about $1400 on this pair of cables. When I contacted Synergistic, I was told that they would only deal with an original owner and that they would only shorten them by reterminating one set of ends but not make 2 pairs. They also stated the cost would be $200 and that they would have to stop production of new cables to be able to do it.

WTF should it cost $200 to cut a cable in half and put a new spade on it? I chose to just have a mess of extra cable rather than do it myself and lose the total value of the cables. Since I am not the original owner, I did not have the other option which I still would not have done.

As far as the charity issue, most of the people I know who have money, do give to charities along with the rest of their frivolous spending. As far as the original topic goes, people with money tend to buy expensive things mainly as a sign of status or keeping up with the rest of the millionaire Jones's.

My same friend just had to have a Mercedes SL 500 convertable because he is a Dr and he could not be seen driving a lesser status car. That $125,000.00 could have been well spent in many other places and he could have bought a new car every 6 years until death. But, when you have the money, you tend to spend it. If I had millions, I would probably have gear that far outpaced its diminishing returns but would not care. I would also give a bigger chunk to charities than I do now also.

You can't point fingers at people who keep the economy going by putting their hard earned, or otherwise, money back into a failing economy. Would we be better off if they spent the $35k at Wall Mart or an American Small Business? I would rather give the cash to a small business.

I just purchased a new suit that I will pick up today. I have not bought a suit for 20 years and have altered the two I have several times. I went to Mens Warehouse where some pushy female that barely spoke english tried to push me to buy any suit on the racks made by close to slave labor countries. I also could have bought the same suits at Macy's on a special sale. I chose instead to buy a suit from a small mens store in my neighborhood. Every suit they had was a fine Italian made piece. He had sales going on and what I got, at half price was still more than all the sales everywhere else. I chose to get one I really liked, while helping to keep a small local business going. I also see that as charity.

I say, if you have the money and choose to spend it on items deemed frivolous by others without, go for it. I wish I had money to blow like that and knowing all too well that a system like that will never sound 1000 times better than my present $15k system, I would still do it. I have had the chance to see and hear systems of that caliber and would love to have one. I never will of course but I would never say the next guy shouldn't.

I too would like to have a status watch, but at the same time I would also like to have a nest egg for retirement so my $100 dollar watches, that by the way keep time to within seconds a year same as a $20 Timex or a $20K Rolex, is what I will probably have on my wrist the rest of my life.

The only issues I see out of all this is people who do not have the cash to pay for things, go into debt over it, and the rest of us pay to bail them out of bankruptcy and pay more for the same items because the store lost their money too.

[02audionoob]

Or they could donate it to help people when their unemployment or health coverage expires due to a$$holes the US Congress.

I think it's time we end the hypocrasy that personal spending on extravagances of dubious value is as economically beneficial as directly helping people to eat and get medical treatment.

You stretched my comment to your own ridiculous extreme. I say it's better the rich man spends his money than stash it away in his bank account. You say than means I've said his extravagance is as good as a charitable donation. Not a logical interpretation.

[02audionoob]

You are absolutely right. It's not because one has the money that one should spend it mindlessly.

If one has money, one may spend it as desired. There isn't really a "should" involved.

[nightflier]

Personally, I am deeply suspicious of what is actually in the box...

Can we elaborate on this? I've been curious about these little dangling boxes that some manufacturers hang on cables, because I do believe it add complexity, hence a sound of their own.

Hyfi, props to you for buying local. Personally I will also buy local even if it does cost more. If only more of those money-to-burn folks would do this....

[Ajani]

Can we elaborate on this? I've been curious about these little dangling boxes that some manufacturers hang on cables, because I do believe it add complexity, hence a sound of their own.

I would love to know what such boxes actually do... For all we know it could be a tone control (which would certainly account for such cables sounding different from cheaper ones)...

[Feanor]

You stretched my comment to your own ridiculous extreme. I say it's better the rich man spends his money than stash it away in his bank account. You say than means I've said his extravagance is as good as a charitable donation. Not a logical interpretation.
Well I'm glad to hear that you're not saying that. I apologize if I seemed to be saying you were. However it is an argument that some other people have made. Yes, economically it is far better that the rich guy spend his money, whether on cables or charity, than it is for him to save it.

[JoeE SP9]

I would love to know what such boxes actually do... For all we know it could be a tone control (which would certainly account for such cables sounding different from cheaper ones)...

A year or so ago I saw where someone had dissasembled the 'interface" boxes on a pair of Transparent cables. The contents of the box turned out to be a Zobel network. That's a resistor and a capacitor in parallel with the load. They weren't even "audiophile" quality.

[poppachubby]

A year or so ago I saw where someone had dissasembled the 'interface" boxes on a pair of Transparent cables. The contents of the box turned out to be a Zobel network. That's a resistor and a capacitor in parallel with the load. They weren't even "audiophile" quality.

What was the price tag on that?

[Feanor]

A year or so ago I saw where someone had dissasembled the 'interface" boxes on a pair of Transparent cables. The contents of the box turned out to be a Zobel network. That's a resistor and a capacitor in parallel with the load. They weren't even "audiophile" quality.
In other words it is a tone control. (A capacitor in parallel with the load is a low-pass filter.)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A reviewer (from Stereophile, I think) once said that he never reviewed cables because he regarded them as just expensive tone controls...

Personally, I am deeply suspicious of what is actually in the box...

So am I, especially when it comes from MIT.

Back when I was a weee little boy, I had a subscription to Stereo Review. They did a big test on expensive cables that I thought was very enlightening. One cable belong to MIT had a little box attached to the cable, and when they cracked open the little box(see the trend here), they found a few cheap little parts in this big empty box. When they measured the response of the cable, it did all kinds of screwy things to the signal, and didn't sound as good to the listeners as a MUCH cheaper cable. Boy did Stereo review lay MIT over the coals on that one. Its funny that the same description of that cable(it took years of R&D, and is made by the finest well tested components) is the same description for this cable.

I do not think I have had the same respect for MIT since then.

I also have to agree with Ajani on his basic point. Nobody can place judgement on another for what they spend their money on. Every works within the constraints of their revenue.

I pay insurance to cover over $2 million dollars worth of audio, video and recording equipment spread out over 10 different properties that I either own, co own, or share with my friends. Some would say this is excessive, and that the money could be better spent. However, I went to work to buy this equipment, so I choose how much I want to spend for it. I can definitely afford to spend 35K on wire if I choose, but I know that it does not cost that much for good wire that does all of the things that E-stat mentions in his post. I can get those same bennies for far less money than 35k. But the fact is, somebody is going to buy that wire, and really nobody has a right to judge that person negatively because he does...it's their choice. Now can we take a stick and poke at them, sure, that's fun. But nobody decides for me what is worthy of a price if I am foolish enough to pay for it.

In saying that, I would still pick up my little stick and poke fun at them for buying this questionable wire LOL I just couldn't help it, I wouldn't be able to hold myself back.

[Feanor]

No, not really. It [$4k watch] was a gift from my wife for my 50th birthday (15 years ago!) that still works perfectly. The crystal is made of an unusual material that, despite 24/7 use (including showering and swimming) has yet to develop a single scratch. And no gold "plating" has worn off, since the gold trim is all 18 kt. stuff.

I will be able to will this watch to my grandchildren.
More likely they'd prefer the $4k + interest.

40 years ago, when I'd just started work, I bought my mother a Seiko manual wind for about $100. It recentlhy went in for a repair; turned out it just needed a cleaning. I have another, quartz Seiko which cost $120 that is still running perfectly -- after about 22 years old.

Probably I'm just a bitter, resentful poor person, but I find the excuses rich people invent to justify their extravagances are quite pathetic at times.

[emaidel]

I find the excuses rich people invent to justify their extravagances are quite pathetic at times.


That's a needless, personal insult my friend, and entirely inappropriate for this, or any other, site. My wife and I spent years and years in our separate careers after many difficult struggles trying to make ends meet, finally were enjoying the "empty nest," and wished to reward ourselves for our 50th birthdays. I bought her a mink coat (gasp! Such extravagance!!) and she bought me my Ebel watch.

Neither of us makes an issue of these two possessions, but we each thoroghly enjoy, and appreciate them. Simply being unable to afford something isn't a reason to condemn others for owning that "something." I can't afford a Maserati, a yacht, or a house in the Marina in San Francisco, but I'd love to have all of them, and don't belittle those who do.

I can't afford $35K speaker cables either, but then, that's another issue...

[Feanor]

That's a needless, personal insult my friend, and entirely inappropriate for this, or any other, site. My wife and I spent years and years in our separate careers after many difficult struggles trying to make ends meet, finally were enjoying the "empty nest," and wished to reward ourselves for our 50th birthdays. I bought her a mink coat (gasp! Such extravagance!!) and she bought me my Ebel watch.

Neither of us makes an issue of these two possessions, but we each thoroghly enjoy, and appreciate them. Simply being unable to afford something isn't a reason to condemn others for owning that "something." I can't afford a Maserati, a yacht, or a house in the Marina in San Francisco, but I'd love to have all of them, and don't belittle those who do.

I can't afford $35K speaker cables either, but then, that's another issue...
Why justify yourself? Why raise the excuse of "difficult struggles"; (I know about those too but have nothing to show for them).

Why not just ignore me? Why not just say, "We're self-indulgent and we love it -- suck it up, B!tch"

[E-Stat]

... but I know that it does not cost that much for good wire that does all of the things that E-stat mentions in his post.
I can't speak for the MIT cable, but how much time did you hear the Nordost Odin cabling in your systems? Indeed, such would be overkill for the Onkyo based system. Speaking of which, what power, speaker and interconnects do you use with that one?

rw

[JohnMichael]

Amen to that, brother. $35K for speaker cables is one thing, and one thing only: ridiculous, conspicuous consumption for the super-wealthy. This is the type of item one would see on the USA network show, "Royal Pains," which does a splendid job illustrating the vacuuous, shallow mindset of the ultra-wealthy Hamptonites on Long Island's East End South Shore.

And here I am, wearing a lowly $4,000 Ebel watch that I actually thought was good.



I am a fan of Swiss watches. What movement does your Ebel have?

[emaidel]

I am a fan of Swiss watches. What movement does your Ebel have?

The back of the bezel says "1911." I hope that answers your question, and perhaps you can explain what it means to me, since I don't know!

[Feanor]

....

I pay insurance to cover over $2 million dollars worth of audio, video and recording equipment spread out over 10 different properties that I either own, co own, or share with my friends. Some would say this is excessive, and that the money could be better spent. However, I went to work to buy this equipment, so I choose how much I want to spend for it. I can definitely afford to spend 35K on wire if I choose, but I know that it does not cost that much for good wire that does all of the things that E-stat mentions in his post. I can get those same bennies for far less money than 35k. But the fact is, somebody is going to buy that wire, and really nobody has a right to judge that person negatively because he does...it's their choice. Now can we take a stick and poke at them, sure, that's fun. But nobody decides for me what is worthy of a price if I am foolish enough to pay for it.

...
This is wisdom of the professional coming through -- no matter how deep one's pockets, one should not loose a sense of value.

I lack Sir T's professional experience but common sense tells me that among cables that are capable of accurate transmission, (as opposed to those that act as tone controls), the differences are going to be extremely small relative to most other components in the chain.

Or to put it another way, expensive cables are mostly to appeal amateurs with deep pockets but a relatively weak sense of value.

On the subject of cables modifying signals, you can read about Spectral equipment, (see HERE (http://www.spectralaudio.com/)), (which has very high reputation). The Spectral warranty demands the use of their own, MIT sourced interconnects and cables precisely because they modify the signal in away that is important to the proper functioning of the Spectral components which handle extraordinarily high bandwidths.

[Ajani]

no matter how deep one's pockets, one should not loose a sense of value.

I agree.... It is your choice whether you choose to spend the money anyway, but I don't see the point in pretending that certain excesses can be justified based on performance, cost or whatever...

A $35K cable is IMO (and probably most persons as well) more absurd than a $20K watch... But in truth, both are absurd, so it's really just a matter of which is less absurd... Neither represents any kind of good value for money... The reason to buy one or the other is because you want to buy one and you will gain some kind of satisfaction from doing so...

It's why I find it so amusing that people want to ridicule persons who drop loads of money on cables, and yet are deeply offended if someone questions the value of their artwork, wine, watches or cars... At the end of the day, none of these luxury items can really be justified based on value... So it really just becomes a finger pointing excercise - "You're stupider for buying $35K cables!" "No, You're Stoopidest for buying a $35K painting!".

I purchased my headphone setup, not because it can really be justified in absolute terms based on value for money (Does my $2K Squeezebox/Benchmark/AKG setup sound 100 times better than my $20 Denon In-Ear Cans through my laptop? HELL NO! In terms of relative value it is a total ripoff,,, Would I buy it again? HELL YES - because I'm willing to pay the excess).... My little brother and my girlfriend both appreciate how sweet my setup sounds, but still look at me like I'm mentally retarded when I discuss the price...

As Sir T and GM have said: it's only human to laugh a little when you see the extreme price of some of these luxury goods (such as cables)... Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't delude yourself into believing that other luxury purchases are somehow justifiable....

[audio amateur]

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't delude yourself into believing that other luxury purchases are somehow justifiable....
The problem here is, cables aren't a 'luxury good'. That's why I have issues with the 35k price, and why I don't with watches, art and the rest which are luxury goods.

[Ajani]

The problem here is, cables aren't a 'luxury good'. That's why I have issues with the 35k price, and why I don't with watches, art and the rest which are luxury goods.




In economics, a luxury good is a good for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises, in contrast to a "necessity good", for which demand is not related to income.

All HiFi products are luxury goods (nothing in HiFi is a necessity).... and HiFi includes cables...

[audio amateur]

All HiFi products are luxury goods (nothing in HiFi is a necessity).... and HiFi includes cables...
I'm interpreting luxury goods in the literal sense, not economic the definition. In economic terms i'm interpreting them more as Veblen goods, of which cables are not, although they might be to some people...

[Ajani]

I'm interpreting luxury goods in the literal sense, not economic the definition. In economic terms i'm interpreting them more as Veblen goods, of which cables are not, although they might be to some people...

What are "luxury goods in the literal sense"? And why would you (presumably) include a Rolex in that category and not a Krell or MIT Cables?

I think the issue is that expensive art, watches, cars etc... are generally regarded as status symbols... Whereas HiFi is no longer regarded as a status symbol in most countries... If it was, then I'm sure you all would accept extreme prices for cables the way you accept them for art and watches...

[nightflier]

Well since most of us can agree that what's happening in the little box isn't what warrants the high price, then the next question is: what does? While I know this is taboo around here, I would love to hear what the engineers are MIT have to say about this cable.

I also wish one of the more reputable evaluators would do a story on these cables. I applaud Audioholics for their debunking of the Lexicon BR player (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/lexicon-bd-30-blu-ray-oppo-clone), and I hope they take this one on too. I think this cable should be filed in the same category. More importantly, it's this kind of product that continues to paint high end audio with a broad and very negative brush.

[Ajani]

Well since most of us can agree that what's happening in the little box isn't what warrants the high price, then the next question is: what does? While I know this is taboo around here, I would love to hear what the engineers are MIT have to say about this cable.

I also wish one of the more reputable evaluators would do a story on these cables. I applaud Audioholics for their debunking of the Lexicon BR player (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/lexicon-bd-30-blu-ray-oppo-clone), and I hope they take this one on too. I think this cable should be filed in the same category. More importantly, it's this kind of product that continues to paint high end audio with a broad and very negative brush.

Let's assume that what is in the box is just a tone control. Suppose MIT learned their lesson from that experience that Sir T refered to and put some expensive circuitry in the box... So same basic function but made from diamond and platinum or some other expensive materials... Would the cable then be worth the money?

I don't think there is anyway that MIT can justify the cable's price to most of us... And why should they? We're not customers or even potential customers...

I think the entire established approach to 'high end audio' is what is responsible for the broad and very negative image... (not just guys like MIT or even Lexiclown)...

1) Pretending that HiFi is solely about performance and nothing else is a joke... You don't buy a luxury car simply because it outruns a cheaper one or an expensive watch because it supposedely keeps better time than a Seiko... You also buy them for aesthetics, craftmanship and comfort (not to mention exlcusivity)... So trying to diss all the HiFi companies who make attractive gear only hurts the industry...

2) Focusing so much on technologies that the majority of persons believe went extinct decades ago... When I read reviews where the reviewer continues to diss digital in 2010 and proposes that readers use only vinyl or "better yet" reel to reel tape... Reel to what??? Nothing wrong with using such products if you enjoy them (and can find recordings on them), but honestly trying to push them as the only choice of "real audiophiles" makes the hobby look like it is the preserve of dinosaurs and the mentally handicapped....

3) Don't get me started on the use of terms like 'mid-fi' and the antisocial nature of the 'swetspot' in the listening room... Seriously, a single chair in the listening position? And then you wonder why your wife/girlfriend/kids show no interest in your hobby....

[nightflier]

1) Pretending that HiFi is solely about performance and nothing else is a joke... You don't buy a luxury car simply because it outruns a cheaper one or an expensive watch because it supposedely keeps better time than a Seiko... You also buy them for aesthetics, craftmanship and comfort (not to mention exlcusivity)... So trying to diss all the HiFi companies who make attractive gear only hurts the industry...

...we're just talking about a cable, here.

Aesthetics?
How good can a cable look, really? Sure it can be colored purple with pink highlights and a neon sheen, but let's be honest, it's still just a piece of wire. Not to mention that it typically sits behind the gear.

Craftmanship?
This isn't something that is a mystery. Cables have been made for decades, some for scientific applications that require a much higher degree of perfection and still cost a bundle less (can't quite see a purchasing agent working for even the military approving a $35K cable for anything). In the end, a cable is a cable and has one function: to pass a signal with a s little interference or coloration as possible

Comfort?
For what? to please the mind with the knowledge that it's there?

Exclusivity?
Even that one is a hard sell. A Ferrari on the driveway certainly would do this, but a cable, hidden behind a rack, doesn't quite measure up that way. Unless the owner expends a lot of energy bragging about it, and well that doesn't appeal to too many people, especially not here.

Ultimately, it's just a cable that apparently colors the sound and is outrageously priced for doing this quite possibly questionable thing.

[Ajani]

...we're just talking about a cable, here.

Aesthetics?
How good can a cable look, really? Sure it can be colored purple with pink highlights and a neon sheen, but let's be honest, it's still just a piece of wire. Not to mention that it typically sits behind the gear.

Craftmanship?
This isn't something that is a mystery. Cables have been made for decades, some for scientific applications that require a much higher degree of perfection and still cost a bundle less (can't quite see a purchasing agent working for even the military approving a $35K cable for anything). In the end, a cable is a cable and has one function: to pass a signal with a s little interference or coloration as possible

Comfort?
For what? to please the mind with the knowledge that it's there?

Exclusivity?
Even that one is a hard sell. A Ferrari on the driveway certainly would do this, but a cable, hidden behind a rack, doesn't quite measure up that way. Unless the owner expends a lot of energy bragging about it, and well that doesn't appeal to too many people, especially not here.

Ultimately, it's just a cable that apparently colors the sound and is outrageously priced for doing this quite possibly questionable thing.

Hey, I strongly suspect that a $35K Cable is more exclusive than a Ferrari! (even though very few of us really want to be part of the exclusive cable group - whereas most of us would have no problem with being part of the Ferrari owners group)...

Also you need to remember that cables are not used in isolation... You won't just buy a $35K Cable and throw it on some Monitor Audio RX6s... You already likely own (as I mentioned earlier in this thread) a $350K setup... So you're not going to put any old $300 cable on that... That's like putting Toyota rims on a Ferrari (regardless of whether they do they job, they just don't fit the exclusive image)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can't speak for the MIT cable, but how much time did you hear the Nordost Odin cabling in your systems? Indeed, such would be overkill for the Onkyo based system. Speaking of which, what power, speaker and interconnects do you use with that one?

rw

Wow, you seem pretty stuck on one system out of perhaps ten that I own. Once again you are riding down Assumption Blvd with your comments.

As far as what cabling do I use for that particular system? Feanor really got it right. They are more than capable of accurate transmission than they are to impress you with their price. They do not have a brand name, so I am sure this will disappoint you.

[E-Stat]

They are more than capable of accurate transmission than they are to impress you with their price. They do not have a brand name, so I am sure this will disappoint you.
While I tend to agree with your viewpoints on video, we obviously have different points of reference when it comes to high performance audio when it comes to music. I'm sure you find generic cable to be quite satisfactory in home theater environments as do I.

Neither you nor Feanor knows what you don't know.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While I tend to agree with your viewpoints on video, we obviously have different points of reference when it comes to high performance audio when it comes to music. I'm sure you find generic cable to be quite satisfactory in home theater environments as do I.

Neither you nor Feanor knows what you don't know.

rw

Who said the cables were generic? I didn't say that. Once again, you are making assumptions and creating information that does not exist.

Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward. Perhaps this is a good time to get things straight.

High performance audio is not about high priced(more like overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. IMO it is about accuracy, which does not require high priced(or overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. As far as reference points, I don't think they are so different. I just don't think what you think is required for a high performance system is really necessary.

And you do not know any more than Feanor or I, so get up off that box because sombody needs the wood.

[Ajani]

Who said the cables were generic? I didn't say that. Once again, you are making assumptions and creating information that does not exist.

Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward. Perhaps this is a good time to get things straight.

High performance audio is not about high priced(more like overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. IMO it is about accuracy, which does not require high priced(or overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables. As far as reference points, I don't think they are so different. I just don't think what you think is required for a high performance system is really necessary.

And you do not know any more than Feanor or I, so get up off that box because sombody needs the wood.

While I totally agree with your point (highlighted in bold), I suspect that what E-Stat has been attempting to ask in multiple threads is: "What high end gear have you used as your reference points for comparison?"

I may make enough income to buy a BMW, yet choose to drive a Honda Civic... That only means that I feel a Civic is sufficient to meet my needs, not that I have necessarily ever driven a BMW and compared it to my Civic... So the fact that your various HT systems cost more than a mind-bogglingly expensive 2 channel setup, doesn't indicate that you have heard such a setup...

So is you point of view based on comparison of your gear to more 'traditional' high end gear ? And if so, are we talking about comparison via listening tests and/or performance specifications?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While I totally agree with your point (highlighted in bold), I suspect that what E-Stat has been attempting to ask in multiple threads is: "What high end gear have you used as your reference points for comparison?"

Because I have debated E-stat enough to know exactly where he is coming from, I have to say none of his damn business. I am not interested in getting into that kind of pissing contest with him sorry.


I may make enough income to buy a BMW, yet choose to drive a Honda Civic... That only means that I feel a Civic is sufficient to meet my needs, not that I have necessarily ever driven a BMW and compared it to my Civic... So the fact that your various HT systems cost more than a mind-bogglingly expensive 2 channel setup, doesn't indicate that you have heard such a setup...

Funny that you would mention this. My son needed a car, and the first place I took him was a BMW dealer to look at used BMW's. The car he really wanted was a Honda Civic, go figure.

I would not make the kinds of comments I make if I have not heard high performance and high end(they are not the same to me) two channel systems. Remember, I am a audio engineer, not a plumber. I have worked and listened on equipment that cost more than most peoples houses, and a few that costs more than several houses. I try to always come from an educated perspective, or I do not engage in the subject.



So is you point of view based on comparison of your gear to more 'traditional' high end gear ? And if so, are we talking about comparison via listening tests and/or performance specifications?

My perspective comes from listening to a wide variety of traditional high end gear versus highly accurate high performance systems.(they are not always the same) Performance specifications are great eye candy, but audio requires the ears, and that is what I do. I listen, then I comment. I do not disparage ones equipment before I actually listening to it. This is where E-stat and I went wrong. Audio= ears, video= eyes. You cannot use your mouth with audio before you use your ears, no matter what name is on the equipment.

[Ajani]

Because I have debated E-stat enough to know exactly where he is coming from, I have to say none of his damn business. I am not interested in getting into that kind of pissing contest with him sorry.

No need to apologise, I have no desire to get into any pissing contests either.




Funny that you would mention this. My son needed a car, and the first place I took him was a BMW dealer to look at used BMW's. The car he really wanted was a Honda Civic, go figure..

Probably has to do with his age and what his friends drive.... A used BMW is a lot more conspicous than a Civic...


I would not make the kinds of comments I make if I have not heard high performance and high end(they are not the same to me) two channel systems. Remember, I am a audio engineer, not a plumber. I have worked and listened on equipment that cost more than most peoples houses, and a few that costs more than several houses. I try to always come from an educated perspective, or I do not engage in the subject.

My perspective comes from listening to a wide variety of traditional high end gear versus highly accurate high performance systems.(they are not always the same) Performance specifications are great eye candy, but audio requires the ears, and that is what I do. I listen, then I comment. I do not disparage ones equipment before I actually listening to it. This is where E-stat and I went wrong. Audio= ears, video= eyes. You cannot use your mouth with audio before you use your ears, no matter what name is on the equipment.

I like that distinction. Expensive gear does not necessarily = accurate. A lot of audiophiles go gaga over obviously coloured components, yet insist that the more accurate ones are bright or lacked some sparkle, pixie dust, etc... I believe we should all buy what sounds best to us (regardless of whether it is accurate or coloured), but we should be aware of whether it is accuracy or colour that we are hearing (hmmm, I wonder what red sounds like?...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I believe we should all buy what sounds best to us (regardless of whether it is accurate or coloured), but we should be aware of whether it is accuracy or colour that we are hearing (hmmm, I wonder what red sounds like?...

I would imagine red would sound bold, bright, big, in your face, brash without being harsh or strident, in your face without being ear grating. (Sorry, I had a Fantasia moment, it comes with working with the mouse ears on film with a lot of music. LOL)

[E-Stat]

Who said the cables were generic? I didn't say that. Once again, you are making assumptions and creating information that does not exist.
The fact that you'd rather posture than answering my simple question is very telling. Surely you know the answers. Right?


Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward. Perhaps this is a good time to get things straight.
Gee, that's funny! That is exactly what I thinking when I responded to your having done precisely what you describe in post #126!


High performance audio is not about high priced(more like overpriced) speakers, amps, or cables.
Agree again! High performance audio is about well matched high performance audio components.


As far as reference points, I don't think they are so different. I just don't think what you think is required for a high performance system is really necessary.
Necessary? Are PZero Corsa tires really necessary? Is an IMAX 15/70 film really necessary? What does "necessary" have to do with observing that which has higher useful performance? There is nothing wrong with "good enough", but "good enough" is not the same as "what is possible".


And you do not know any more than Feanor or I, so get up off that box because sombody needs the wood.
Actually, I do. Let's go back to your first observation: Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward.

I have heard Nordost Valhalla and Odin at length in a spectacular system (not my own). It is on that experience that I base my comments. You and Feanor, on the other hand, are speculating.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The fact that you'd rather posture than answering my simple question is very telling. Surely you know the answers. Right?

Wrong. The only thing it tells is that I am choosing not to respond to the question as it is none of your business plain and simple.



Gee, that's funny! That is exactly what I thinking when I responded to your having done precisely what you describe in post #126!

Gee, what is funny is that you are assuming that what I stated in post #126 is something I haven't done.



Agree again! High performance audio is about well matched high performance audio components.

And well matched high performance audio components do not have to cost $70,000



Necessary? Are PZero Corsa tires really necessary? Is an IMAX 15/70 film really necessary? What does "necessary" have to do with observing that which has higher useful performance? There is nothing wrong with "good enough", but "good enough" is not the same as "what is possible".

Is this some weak attempt to be deep?



Actually, I do. Let's go back to your first observation: Audio is about listening first, and commenting afterward.

If this is what you do, then why are you so inconsistent? You made a negative comment about ONE of my systems before you even heard a single sound from it. So either you are a liar, or you just like to talk a lot of smack


I have heard Nordost Valhalla and Odin at length in a spectacular system (not my own). It is on that experience that I base my comments. You and Feanor, on the other hand, are speculating.

rw

Ahh damn, more assumptions.

E-stat, I do not even want to see your name again, that is how much contempt I have for your overblown bag of hot air comments

[GMichael]

(Mike peeks in to see two old friends ripping each other appart)

Is this why you guys both quit being mods? You missed the action?

(Mike slips out the door before anyone could grab him)

[Ajani]

(Mike peeks in to see two old friends ripping each other appart)

Is this why you guys both quit being mods? You missed the action?

(Mike slips out the door before anyone could grab him)

Damnit. I want an arch-nemesis too!!! Why should Sir T and E-Stat get to have all the fun???

AA, PoppaC, GM? Any takers? :ciappa:

[audio amateur]

Damnit. I want an arch-nemesis too!!! Why should Sir T and E-Stat get to have all the fun???

AA, PoppaC, GM? Any takers? :ciappa:
Haven't you already had your turn with all three of us? :)

[Ajani]

Haven't you already had your turn with all three of us? :)

(That sounds so wrong, btw).... but that was only for this thread... that's not quite the same as having never-ending battles in multiple threads...

[GMichael]

Damnit. I want an arch-nemesis too!!! Why should Sir T and E-Stat get to have all the fun???

AA, PoppaC, GM? Any takers? :ciappa:

Just spout off about Plasma being better than LCD, or that 3D rules and you can have Pixy as your nemesis.

[GMichael]

Haven't you already had your turn with all three of us? :)

I don't swing that way.

(At least, that's my story)

[audio amateur]

(That sounds so wrong, btw).
loool, hadn't thought of that. I guess my mind isn't as perverted as yours:ciappa:

[audio amateur]

(At least, that's my story)
What's THAT supposed to mean?:yikes:

[Ajani]

loool, hadn't thought of that. I guess my mind isn't as perverted as yours:ciappa:

Or GMs! lol

[Ajani]

What's THAT supposed to mean?:yikes:

Are you sure you want to find out??? :shocked:

[GMichael]

What's THAT supposed to mean?:yikes:

:15: :15: :15: :15:

[poppachubby]

(Loads a $35K bong...)

[audio amateur]

Are you sure you want to find out??? :shocked:
Probably not :19:

[GMichael]

(Loads a $35K bong...)

I'll be right there.

[GMichael]

Probably not :19:
Don’t worry. I’m just an equal opportunity flirt. The only person who gets any farther with me is wifey.

[audio amateur]

The only person who gets any farther with me is wifey.
That's all that matters;)

[nightflier]

E-stat, I do not even want to see your name again, that is how much contempt I have for your overblown bag of hot air comments

Stop stifling discussion. This is a disservice to everyone here and to the site.

While we're at it, why don't you get back to the OT? You're always such a stickler for people going off topic, so don't be a hypocrite about it here.

[E-Stat]

The only thing it tells is that I am choosing not to respond to the question as it is none of your business plain and simple.
Call...

Fold.

rw

[mlsstl]

Always amazes me how many opportunities for a graceful exit can pass by unused....

;-)

[Hyfi]

(Loads a $35K bong...)

Wait, does the bong cost $35k or what was loaded into it?

If it is the bong, a $30 bong might just be as good and the $35k bong. Did you try them both in a "double bong blind sided taste test":idea: ?

Now if it's the load, the $35k bag might just be better than the $200 bag. If one does not have high end tastes, they may not be able to tell the difference after the munchies wear off.

[Luvin Da Blues]

This is not $35K but is $3750 close enough?
http://www.everyonedoesit.com/online_headshop/Roor_Custom_Little_Sista_Icemaster_70__EDITOT_SPEC IAL.cfm?iProductID=5709

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Call...

Fold.

rw

Call

Don't want to be bothered and hung up is more like it

[nightflier]

"Hung up" or stuck up?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Hung up" or stuck up?

Irrelevant much like yourself.

[nightflier]

As I figured... stuck up.

[E-Stat]

Call

Don't want to be bothered
Calling without showing your hand. Hmmm. Great strategy! :)

rw

[3LB]

Damnit. I want an arch-nemesis too!!! Why should Sir T and E-Stat get to have all the fun???

Sir Tantrum is everybody's arch-nemesis - he'll make the same presumptous statements he claims to abhore from others, and when you call him on it, he turns haughty, telling you why his experiences give him powers beyond mortal men and why your experiences are sh!t, then he'll call you names...if he hasn't pissed your direction yet, give it time.


As far as all these arguments go, if anyone is really concerned, all is revealed through DBT - measurable differences in audio gear only count when you can hear them; if you can't audibly discern differences twix "cheap" and "audiophile" gear in a DBT, why fool yourself? Why believe in things that make it tough on you? Give the past a slip - its time for new traditions.

Listen to music, not gear.








oh mrtycrafts, where art thou?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir Tantrum is everybody's arch-nemesis - he'll make the same presumptous statements he claims to abhore from others, and when you call him on it, he turns haughty, telling you why his experiences give him powers beyond mortal men and why your experiences are sh!t, then he'll call you names...if he hasn't pissed your direction yet, give it time.




You can always bet gutter snipe type individuals will arise from the gutter with their cheap shot online psychiatric diagnoses. You can even set you watch on them.

You should changed your moniker to 3IQ

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Calling without showing your hand. Hmmm. Great strategy! :)

rw

You called, and I was not interested in answering. Merry go round arguement with no point at the end are useless arguements. You build far too many points on assumptions. Nightidiots are on his guts and what he thinks. It is pointless to argue with assumptions, and it is even more pointless to argue with a complete idiots like nightidiot.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As I figured... stuck up.

How about another option. I do not debate with idiots nightidiot.

[nightflier]

If I had a dollar for every time I've already asked this... lil't why are you here?

You've contributed nothing meaningful to this discussion yet you've managed, as usual, to turn off most of the people here again. I actually believe that in light of the Lexicon BR fiasco, the value of high priced audio is a rather pertinent topic. You have a dozen or so high-end systems to draw from. As such, you represent a segment of the buying public that actually can buy this type of gear, and you could possibly have something meaningful to contribute. But instead you just want to brag about yourself and crush any else's contribution unless it fawns over your supposed greatness. It's an insult to us all.

So I ask again, why are you here?

[3LB]

I do not debate with idiots nightidiot.
I thought it was Nightliar? anyhoo...

I've contributed as much to the actual topic as you have. I haven't resorted to name calling: lets see...liar (check), idiot (check), gutter snipe (check)...and I'm taking cheapshots? You've proven every thing I stated about you in this thread...how is that cheap?

Nightflier's last post pretty much pegged it, you could contribute something of real substance, and yet this is how the majority of threads involving you wind up.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I thought it was Nightliar? anyhoo...

I've contributed as much to the actual topic as you have. I haven't resorted to name calling: lets see...liar (check), idiot (check), gutter snipe (check)...and I'm taking cheapshots? You've proven every thing I stated about you in this thread...how is that cheap?

Yo brainless, did you forget that you said this fool?

Sir Tantrum is everybody's arch-nemesis - he'll make the same presumptous statements he claims to abhore from others, and when you call him on it, he turns haughty, telling you why his experiences give him powers beyond mortal men and why your experiences are sh!t, then he'll call you names...if he hasn't pissed your direction yet, give it time.

Before you said this, I said absolutely nothing to you. I already knew you were a zero.





Nightflier's last post pretty much pegged it, you could contribute something of real substance, and yet this is how the majority of threads involving you wind up.

Isn't contributing anything my choice? If I choose not to contribute(because I know what it will devolve in to) that is my choice as well. Everyone has a choice whether to contribute or not, it is not required, and it cannot be. If you do not like this, really it is too damn bad.

It is really easy for two idiots to agree.

[nightflier]

Isn't contributing anything my choice? If I choose not to contribute(because I know what it will devolve in to) that is my choice as well. Everyone has a choice whether to contribute or not, it is not required, and it cannot be. If you do not like this, really it is too damn bad.

...why are you here?

Or as someone else said it better: How many times do I have to flush before you go away?

[E-Stat]

You called, and I was not interested in answering.
Precisely. I called your bluff and you folded. That's what folks do with empty hands. Such is obvious when one invests more time whining and posturing than answering simple questions.

We all get it. :)

rw

[Luvin Da Blues]

...why are you here?

Because he has an audience and you guys keep egging him on, knowing what the results will be. It's actually amazing how entertaining this predictability is. :lol:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Precisely. I called your bluff and you folded. That's what folks do with empty hands. Such is obvious when one invests more time whining and posturing than answering simple questions.

We all get it. :)

rw

I do not choose to answer the question because it quite frankly is none of your business simple or not. Its not empty hands, it is not posturing, it is not whining. I am choosing not to get into a stupid pissing contest that ends up being nothing in the end. Bluff? There was no bluff, it was a question that I choose not to answer. So you can attempt to rewrite reality, but my words were plain and simple. I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A PISSING CONTEST WITH YOU THAT ENDS UP BEING NOTHING IN THE END. Is that clear enough for you your denseness?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...why are you here?

Or as someone else said it better: How many times do I have to flush before you go away?

Why don't you look in the mirror and ask yourself the same question? As far as going away, never. So flush away idiot.

[nightflier]

Well you sure are stinking up the place....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well you sure are stinking up the place....

That must be coming from you because the internet has no way of transmitting smell.

[E-Stat]

I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO A ...
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I know exactly what Tinkerbell would recommend for you here. (http://aimg.disneystore.com/content/ds/themes/default11/flash/s7.html?pid=400175573321MS)

Your sig line speaks volumes. Since you find your cabling unworthy of mention, it is most likely that we would all agree.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. I know exactly what Tinkerbell would recommend for you here. (http://aimg.disneystore.com/content/ds/themes/default11/flash/s7.html?pid=400175573321MS)

Your sig line speaks volumes. Since you find your cabling unworthy of mention, it is most likely that we would all agree.

rw

Once again you are spinning. I did not say it wasn't worthy of mentioning, I said I was not going to discuss it PERIOD. Let it go E-stat, just let it go.

My sig line mentions just one of 13 system I own, that is why I think you are pretty ridiculous for focusing on that one. As I have said before, you are not the only person on this board who has heard a high performance system.

Since when is telling somebody you are not going to discuss something protesting?

You know, you have piss poor baiting skills, give that up and move on to something else :rolleyes:

[E-Stat]

My sig line mentions just one of 13 system I own,
You miss the obvious. It has nothing to do with one system. Obviously, you are uncomfortable revealing what cabling you use in any system. Why else would you pen hundreds of words in lieu of answering what most audio enthusiasts consider to be a simple and significant question. We know why. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You miss the obvious. It has nothing to do with one system. Obviously, you are uncomfortable revealing what cabling you use in any system. Why else would you pen hundreds of words in lieu of answering what most audio enthusiasts consider to be a simple and significant question. We know why. :)

rw

Because it is none of your damn business, that is why. Plain and simple. Nothing more, nothing less, just none of your damn business. Now you can create any other reason in your head that you desire, but my reason is very simple. Now that you know why, move on. Why is that so hard for you?

I think you do not like being denied a gotcha moment..LOLOLOLOL

[nightflier]

That must be coming from you because the internet has no way of transmitting smell.

...you seem to have the uncanny ability to stink up any discussion. Somehow the putrid stench just doesn't fail to accumulate when you join in.

Now since you have stated over and over that you have nothing to add, could you please leave? The rest of us would like to get back to the original discussion.

Either contribute, or go away.

We can do without your fetid presence.

[02audionoob]

I stopped in at this thread just now, wondering what in the world you guys could be talking about with regard to expensive speaker cables at 196 posts. I see now you're not discussing cables...you're discussing the discussion.

[Hyfi]

I stopped in at this thread just now, wondering what in the world you guys could be talking about with regard to expensive speaker cables at 196 posts. I see now you're not discussing cables...you're discussing the discussion.


Ya-Huh!

Nuh-Uhh!

[nightflier]

Well it wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for a certain troll....

[E-Stat]

I stopped in at this thread just now, wondering what in the world you guys could be talking about with regard to expensive speaker cables at 196 posts..
That's what happens when you have some folks who have absolutely zero performance with high performance cabling attempting to tell those who have that they are no better than generic crap. The thin veneer exposes itself quite quickly when they resolutely refuse to demonstrate any semblance of substance to their commentary. And for some odd reason, they get kinda testy about their ignorance. :)

rw

[audio amateur]

I stopped in at this thread just now, wondering what in the world you guys could be talking about with regard to expensive speaker cables at 196 posts. I see now you're not discussing cables...you're discussing the discussion.
When I see that a thread keeps on getting bigger at a fast pace, I just assume there's somekind of argument going on. Most of the time, I can't be bothered to read the whole thing if I havent been following. It just so happens that I have followed this one:)

I do have to say though, I'm getting a little tired of Sir T vs. the rest debates. I want a change of opponents!

[Hyfi]

I want a change of opponents!

Yeah, wouldn't it be fun if Mytrcraft and his crew came back?

[Ajani]

I do have to say though, I'm getting a little tired of Sir T vs. the rest debates. I want a change of opponents!

What I find truly interesting is that so many people hate (or at least dislike) Sir T to the point that despite him clearly being on the side of the majority of persons in this thread (the $35K Cables are a clear rip-off camp), they are still anxious to attack and evict him....

[audio amateur]

Mytrcraft and crew
Refresh my memory?

[02audionoob]

We're almost all just hobbyists, amateurs, newbies or whatever just here for entertainment or maybe to learn a little something from time to time. We also like to help people when they ask for it. We're like anyone else...we don't react well to being told we're stupid. Everyone has their own areas of expertise. For example...Who do you suppose knows more about the inner workings of a computer...the CEO of Hewlett-Packard or some geek at a computer repair shop?

[E-Stat]

Refresh my memory?
Mtry is now an "Audioholics Overlord" :) A self-confessed "ditch digger" and boom-box fancier, Mtry was the librarian of DBT studies he never read. His choppy, comma-spliced writing style was unmistakable. He also had trouble keeping track of what he said during a thread. Here's (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=15196&postcount=50) one example.

He was banned both here and at Audio Asylum. That should tell you something.

rw

[E-Stat]

What I find truly interesting is that so many people hate (or at least dislike) Sir T to the point that despite him clearly being on the side of the majority of persons in this thread (the $35K Cables are a clear rip-off camp), they are still anxious to attack and evict him....
If you find that speculation trumps actual exposure, then so be it. There is clearly a case of diminishing returns found here as with many high tech pursuits, but I can tell you that the sonic results of using a similarly priced Nordost Odin must be heard to be believed. Naturally, that was in an exceptional system capable of showing the differences.

rw

[audio amateur]

He also had trouble keeping track of what he said during a thread.
LOL! I'm looking forward to read up on his threads then:)

[Ajani]

If you find that speculation trumps actual exposure, then so be it.

No I don't. That's why I don't have much regard for the typical "all cables sound the same, based on DBT" view.... While I've yet to hear a difference in cables (that was significant enough for me to rule out my imagination as the source), I'm not willing to label anyone who claims to have heard such differences as crazy, etc... I'd rather try it for myself and come to my own conclusions...


There is clearly a case of diminishing returns found here as with many high tech pursuits, but I can tell you that the sonic results of using a similarly priced Nordost Odin must be heard to be believed. Naturally, that was in an exceptional system capable of showing the differences.

rw

Thing is I believe that "diminishing returns" sets in at about the iPod level... That doesn't mean I wouldn't own a system costing 100X as much though... It depends on how much disposable income (not total income - it's not about who makes the most money) I have at the time and whether I think the differences are worth it...

[E-Stat]

It depends on how much disposable income (not total income - it's not about who makes the most money) I have at the time and whether I think the differences are worth it...
My commentary as to what is possible with audio gear is independent of cost. It has nothing to do with ownership, status, bragging rights, "pissing contests" or whatever. It is about experiencing that which is possible. The best systems I've heard are not my own. Such has nothing at all to do with appreciating that which can be perceived. I most certainly do not own an IMAX theater, a symphony orchestra, or the Mormon Tabernacle, but each one of those offers perceptual delights.

As for MoTab, I was in SLC last week on a skiing trip. The wife and I went down to Temple Square Thursday evening and attended a practice session with the chorus. The acoustics of that place and the power of the pipe organ with five thirty-two foot stops is breathtaking. There was one piece where both the chorus and the organ are going full tilt and then stop abruptly - with only the reverberation time hanging in the air majestically.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/motab.jpg

For me, that is what it is all about.

rw

[Hyfi]

Mtry is now an "Audioholics Overlord" :) A self-confessed "ditch digger" and boom-box fancier, Mtry was the librarian of DBT studies he never read. His choppy, comma-spliced writing style was unmistakable. He also had trouble keeping track of what he said during a thread. Here's (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=15196&postcount=50) one example.

He was banned both here and at Audio Asylum. That should tell you something.

rw

Yikes, I just realized how long I have been posting at AR. It was somewhere around 1995-96 that I upgraded for the first time, radio shack zip cord and black & reds to Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire speaker and Quantum Interconnects.

Posting my observations and getting slaughtered in no time flat was my first experiences on the Cable board. Mytr had 5 or so disciples that would drop the axe on you if he was not around for an hour or so.

The basic rule of thumb for him and his followers was that if it was not quantifiable in published articles that it was heard in a DBT, then there is no way that our most incredible human ear could possibly hear subtle differences in cables.

Therefor, black & reds along with zip cord are as audibly the same as a $35K pair in a deserving system.

He never would admit or post to what he himself listened to or through and would never mention any cables although he would argue until death they are all the same. Maybe Belkin.

So the conclusions can only be one of two:

He is actually a deaf man who relies on other senses such as reading DBT studies for all backing belief systems.

or

He is almost deaf and believes that a Boom Box sounds identical to any other high end system you can name.

Either way, his hearing is not good enough to hear subtle detail.

There are plenty of blind people who hear things the normal individual does not hear. Not necessarily because they really can't hear it, but because they are just not paying attention, concentrating hard enough or are somehow distracted.

[Ajani]

My commentary as to what is possible with audio gear is independent of cost. It has nothing to do with ownership, status, bragging rights, "pissing contests" or whatever. It is about experiencing that which is possible. The best systems I've heard are not my own. Such has nothing at all to do with appreciating that which can be perceived. I most certainly do not own an IMAX theater, a symphony orchestra, or the Mormon Tabernacle, but each one of those offers perceptual delights.

As for MoTab, I was in SLC last week on a skiing trip. The wife and I went down to Temple Square Thursday evening and attended a practice session with the chorus. The acoustics of that place and the power of the pipe organ with five thirty-two foot stops is breathtaking. There was one piece where both the chorus and the organ are going full tilt and then stop abruptly - with only the reverberation time hanging in the air majestically.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/motab.jpg

For me, that is what it is all about.

rw

Very well said... we should be able to appreciate gear, regardless of the cost... Now whether we think it is 'worth' the money is a different issue...

[3LB]

I never was a huge fan of mrtycraps (as I used to call him) because while I do value the DBT for my own purposes, I see no value in telling other people what they hear. Problem was, if I stae that I heard no difference twix a $30 set of cable and a $300 dollar set of cables (during a DBT that was conducted over 10 years ago) then some golden ear would come along and tell that "of course, there is no diff twix a $30 and $300 set of cables, because they're so close in price range" or "then the equipment they were using was suspect" and my fave was, "your equipment is so low-fi, I wouldn't waste $30 on a set of cables for it". I think that's why Mrtycrafts use a boombox for an analogy...I doubt he even owned one. I think both sides of the debate is guilty of righteous indignation.

I just finally realized one day I'd rather listen to music, not gear. There is no holy grail.

[02audionoob]

Ooohhh...I just hate it when someone posts a picture so large the page width goes off my screen.

:mad:

[E-Stat]

I think that's why Mrtycrafts use a boombox for an analogy...I doubt he even owned one.
It's "Mtry" which is an abbreviation for Monterrey. You are mistaken about the boom boxes. Here (http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55935&highlight=mtrycrafts) they are along with his HT system.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you find that speculation trumps actual exposure, then so be it.

rw

See, this is where you are wrong. You are making assumptions that I have not been exposed to the cables you mentioned. I have heard the entire line of Nordost speaker cable and interconnects both analog and digital when I was building my studio. As I said previously, I listen first, then make comments.

As I have said before, you are not the only one exposed to high end stuff around here. You are the only person that obsesses on it

[E-Stat]

Ooohhh...I just hate it when someone posts a picture so large the page width goes off my screen.
Sorry. I resized the original 1600 x 1200 image down to 1024 x 768. Are you using an 800 x 600 VGA monitor?

rw

[E-Stat]

See, this is where you are wrong. You are making assumptions that I have not been exposed to the cables you mentioned. I have heard the entire line of Nordost speaker cable and interconnects both analog and digital when I was building my studio.
So, tell us what you find about each of the fourteen models and on what system you decided to listen to that many speaker cables on. Don't tell me, don't tell me - it's none of your business. Credibility=zero. :)

rw

[02audionoob]

Sorry. I resized the original 1600 x 1200 image down to 1024 x 768. Are you using an 800 x 600 VGA monitor?

rw

Hey...thanks. I use a 1280 x 1024 monitor, so a 1024 image width doesn't push the thread off my screen.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, tell us what you find about each of the fourteen models and on what system you decided to listen to that many speaker cables on. Don't tell me, don't tell me - it's none of your business. Credibility=zero. :)

rw

Now you must know by now that having Credibility=zero in your eyes means absolutely nothing to me. You gotta know this.......

[E-Stat]

Now you must know by now that having Credibility=zero in your eyes means absolutely nothing to me. You gotta know this.......
Absolutely. With video topics, you actually provide legitimate examples and compelling evidence that I truly appreciate. Your audio advice, on the other hand, is useless. Especially when you make inept, sweeping statements like you did in the last post which makes no sense. As for me, I've only auditioned two particular Nordost cables at length in a known system (Valhalla and Odin) and own neither. Only a fool would take the time to burn in and evaluate fourteen different cables in their system - if that is truly what you did. Or should have done if you were seriously looking for high performance cabling. I would have thought you were smarter and valued your time more.

rw

[3LB]

It's "Mtry" which is an abbreviation for Monterrey. You are mistaken about the boom boxes. Here (http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55935&highlight=mtrycrafts)they are along with his HT system.

rw I think I used to own that one boombox...it had a built-in "sub" (dedicated 4" bass speaker) or at least mine did. It was a great little unit until it got knocked off some scaffolding on the concrete floor :frown2:

I knew about the Mtry thing but sometimes I called him Marty for ****s-n-grins

one of his tagteam partners here had those humongous Infinity speakers with the 4 open-baffled 15" woofers per speaker. I forget his name...nice guy though

You know, there's something to be said for owning multiple systems. I have four currently, all different approaches. I build my own speakers (two-ways, three-ways and single driver concept). I've attempted some "special" cables - I followed the directions to a tee (from a Stereophile article) but they were so suseptable to radio interference I tossed them. I own one of those cool little Super-T amps that I bought. I don't have the soldering equipment or skill required to build my own amps but I do hope to rectify that soon. I like going from system to system, listening to music on each one brings out something different each time, especially the single driver speakers. I use regular old lamp cord for the internal wiring and they've measured rather well. I've won first and second place in speaker contests with some of my entries using some rather inexpensive drivers (sound only - judges could not see what they were listening to). I love listening to high end systems but I'm not remiss for not owning one. I scoffed at the $35K cables but I do realize that audiophilia has its place - its the reason why technology advances in most cases. If rich guys didn't spend $1500 on the first genration CD players, then the manufacturors may have never made $150 ones for the masses. Same with cables. Once upon a time, $35 dollars got some really crappy cables, not just sound-wise, but fit and finish as well - these things couldn't be moved too much before they developed shorts or breaks and made better AM antennas than they did cables. Nowadays $20 will buy you a lot sturdier set of cables, with shielded casings and higher quality materials all around - these are the cables that used to cost over $100 from Monster or some brand like that 20 years ago. I know I know, prolly has a lot more to do with slave labor. Hopefully, the guys building the $35K cables will give their employees a hell of a benefits package.

[Hyfi]

Refresh my memory?


Here is a typical link which if I didn't know better I would have thought it was from here but in 1995.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37657

If it is not published from a DBT, it does not exist.

Get it?
Got it?
Good!:cryin:

[audio amateur]

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37657
I already feel like wringing his neck.

[Hyfi]

I already feel like wringing his neck.

It's too funny since that recent post looks no different than what happened here back in 1995.

We should all go over there and mess with him for some fun even though it will turn out just the same.

[audio amateur]

It's too funny since that recent post looks no different than what happened here back in 1995.
AR was around back then?

We should all go over there and mess with him for some fun even though it will turn out just the same.
haha yeah it'd be the AR boys vs. audioholics :devil:

Gotta admit, his 'Audioholics Overlord' user title is pretty pathetic:yesnod:

[Hyfi]

AR was around back then?

Yeah, I spent close to 2 years only on the cable board before branching out to Rave Recs where I met so many great people and was introduced to music I would have never heard.

They made some changes at one point and made us all register again making it look like we have not been here as long.

[minicam]

It's hard to think about the performance of such expensive speaker cable !!!! I hope I can have chance to hear about that. :P

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

AR was around back then?

haha yeah it'd be the AR boys vs. audioholics :devil:

Gotta admit, his 'Audioholics Overlord' user title is pretty pathetic:yesnod:

I joined audio review in 1995, and it was quite a battle ground back then.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Absolutely. With video topics, you actually provide legitimate examples and compelling evidence that I truly appreciate. Your audio advice, on the other hand, is useless. Especially when you make inept, sweeping statements like you did in the last post which makes no sense.

After spending more than a year(almost two) evaluating and listening to many different cables from many different manufacturers, I am in quite a good position to make sweeping generalizations. Can you say that? I don't think so



As for me, I've only auditioned two particular Nordost cables at length in a known system (Valhalla and Odin) and own neither. Only a fool would take the time to burn in and evaluate fourteen different cables in their system - if that is truly what you did. Or should have done if you were seriously looking for high performance cabling. I would have thought you were smarter and valued your time more.

rw

Once again, you are filled with sweeping assumptions about what I have done, or didn't do. I was not the only person working on my studio project, there were at least 5 people working on it at all times. Secondly the cables were burned in, but not be me. They were installed in the evaluating system after they were properly burned in according to the manufacturers recommendations. Thirdly, I would not ever break out a cable, listen to it for a day, and think I have walked away with a enough time for a proper evaluation. It is supremely obvious you know nothing about me, or what I do in terms of audio. While you sit on your butt listening to audio, I am mixing and mastering it on a daily basis. I do not need a couch enthusiast to tell me anything about what I do daily thanks.

When somebody is going to spend a considerable sum on something like cable, it IS smart to take the time to listen to as many cables as you can to get an idea of what optimum performance really is. Only an idiot would not do it before signing a wire transfer of funds I was going to do. I considered that time I spent as extremely valueable to me, because I learned that everything with a high price tag does not necessarily perform up the the expectations of the price tag. I also learned that everthing with a audiophile name brand on it does not necessarily outperform a non branded cable or interconnect. Lastly, it is MY time, not yours. How I choose to spend my time is my business, not yours. Only I can determine what is a waste of my time, not you.

[E-Stat]

I am in quite a good position to make sweeping generalizations. Can you say that? I don't think so
Yet another substance-free comment. Don't tell me, don't tell me - its none of our business!


When somebody is going to spend a considerable sum on something like cable, it IS smart to take the time to listen to as many cables as you can to get an idea of what optimum performance really is.
Agreed. Knock yourself out if you want to listen to fourteen different speaker cables from one manufacturer!



I also learned that everthing with a audiophile name brand on it does not necessarily outperform a non branded cable or interconnect.
Certainly not. But you won't find a truly low DC cable from a spool of Belden, Carol, Gepco, etc.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yet another substance-free comment. Don't tell me, don't tell me - its none of our business!

Not ours, yours



Agreed. Knock yourself out if you want to listen to fourteen different speaker cables from one manufacturer!

More assumptions. It was five different manufacturers, not one.




Certainly not. But you won't find a truly low DC cable from a spool of Belden, Carol, Gepco, etc.

rw

You are and endless sea of assumptions.

[E-Stat]

More assumptions. It was five different manufacturers, not one.
Let's see if we can figure out the source of your confusion. Here is an earlier comment of yours:

"I have heard the entire line of Nordost speaker cable and interconnects both analog and digital when I was building my studio."

So, how many different Nordost speaker cables are there in the entire line? Let's take a look here. (http://nordost.com/Speaker_Cables_N3.asp) Answer? Fourteen. So, there are two possibilities:

1. You listened to fourteen different speaker cables from one manufacturer (in addition to whatever else you haven't stated). The first statement is correct and the second one is wrong.
2. You actually listened to fourteen speaker cables from multiple manufacturers. The first statement is wrong and second statement is correct.

Both statements cannot exist simultaneously. Which is it?



You are and endless sea of assumptions.
I really don't expect you to provide any substance to your detail-free commentary, but I'll try anyway. What "no-name" brand speaker cable has the lowest DC in your experience? And what is that value? Obviously, you have no idea and will prove that conclusively with your reply.

rw

[E-Stat]

For anyone who is really interested in speaker wire performance, there are three metrics - inductance, capacitance and resistance which can characterize part of their performance envelope. While some engineers like Roger Russell only focus on resistance, smarter engineers understand that the other two also play significant roles with the interaction between an amplifier and the speaker's crossover network or transformer interface, especially inductance for most speakers and both for electrostats like mine. Several years ago, our resident nuclear scientist John Escallier (aka JNeutron) taught me there is a relationship between the two former metrics which is called Dielectric Constant. Here (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=166594&postcount=40) is where the formula can be found.

A "perfect" cable would have a DC of 1. Let's compare a couple different cables and see where they fit:

Belden 1311A (http://www.alliedelec.com/Images/Products/Datasheets/BM/BELDEN_WIRE_AND_CABLE/216-0483.PDF), their best speaker cables part of the "Brilliance Broadcast" series. L=.15uH/ft, C=22.3 pF/ft, DC=3.23

JPS Labs Superconductor + (http://www.jpslabs.com/PDF/instsuperspkr.pdf) which is what I use. L= .06uH/ft , C=20 pF/ft, DC=1.16

Nordost Tyr (http://nordost.com/Tyr-Reference-Speaker-Cable-P27.asp), one of their better cables. L=.11 uH/ft, C=11 pF/ft, DC=1.17

Generic Zip cord (http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/cross-coax-cables-design-vs-zip-cord), the old standard and presumed by some to be of the highest performance. L=.191 uH/ft, C=18 pF/ft, DC=3.32

While I don't assert this is the only qualitative factor, there are differences in cable performance and certain aspects can be easily quantified when you understand what to look for. DC characterizes the degree to which the cable stores energy and smears the signal in the time domain. That is where you'll find differences in focus and loss of information.

rw

[3LB]

For anyone who is really interested in speaker wire performance, there are three metrics - inductance, capacitance and resistance which can characterize part of their performance envelope. While some engineers like Roger Russell only focus on resistance, smarter engineers understand that the other two also play significant roles with the interaction between an amplifier and the speaker's crossover network or transformer interface, especially inductance for most speakers and both for electrostats like mine. Several years ago, our resident nuclear scientist John Escallier (aka JNeutron) taught me there is a relationship between the two former metrics which is called Dielectric Constant. Here (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=166594&postcount=40) is where the formula can be found.

A "perfect" cable would have a DC of 1. Let's compare a couple different cables and see where they fit:

Belden 1311A (http://www.alliedelec.com/Images/Products/Datasheets/BM/BELDEN_WIRE_AND_CABLE/216-0483.PDF), their best speaker cables part of the "Brilliance Broadcast" series. L=.15uH/ft, C=22.3 pF/ft, DC=3.23

JPS Labs Superconductor + (http://www.jpslabs.com/PDF/instsuperspkr.pdf) which is what I use. L= .06uH/ft , C=20 pF/ft, DC=1.16

Nordost Tyr (http://nordost.com/Tyr-Reference-Speaker-Cable-P27.asp), one of their better cables. L=.11 uH/ft, C=11 pF/ft, DC=1.17

Generic Zip cord (http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/cross-coax-cables-design-vs-zip-cord), the old standard and presumed by some to be of the highest performance. L=.191 uH/ft, C=18 pF/ft, DC=3.32

While I don't assert this is the only qualitative factor, there are differences in cable performance and certain aspects can be easily quantified when you understand what to look for. DC characterizes the degree to which the cable stores energy and smears the signal in the time domain. That is where you'll find differences in focus and loss of information.

rwwhat about Cat5 cable?

[E-Stat]

what about Cat5 cable?
Good question. The datasheet for Belden 1583a does not list inductance. Chris VenHaus has a braided DIY design using CAT5 which trades low inductance for high capacitance like Goertz cable - which increases the DC. Such is relatively easy to do. The trick is keeping both values low simultaneously while still maintaining low R.

rw

[audio amateur]

Isn't the resistance just a function of the cable's gauge and length?

[E-Stat]

Isn't the resistance just a function of the cable's gauge and length?
Surface area counts, too. Solid core has less surface area than stranded.

rw

[Luvin Da Blues]

Surface area counts, too. Solid core has less surface area than stranded.

rw

Exacatacly, a small current will flow almost exclusively on the perimeter. As the current increases, this current flow with start to propagate inwards towards the center of the conductor.

[audio amateur]

So more surface area is better or worse?

[GMichael]

So more surface area is better or worse?

Yes! You've got it now.

[audio amateur]

Yes! You've got it now.
Sorry?

[Luvin Da Blues]

So more surface area is better or worse?


All things being equal, the wire with the most surface area would be a more efficient conductor. As with all things in physics there is a trade off, more surface area will also induce more sheath (eddy) currents produced by the varying magnetic field(s) of the signal.

[E-Stat]

So more surface area is better or worse?
As LDB indicated, it would reduce resistance and is therefore desirable. It is almost as if you have a larger gauge wire. I've got some killer 6 gauge jumper cables that are stranded that do a far better job of transferring current than cheaper solid core models.

rw

[bfalls]

As LDB indicated, it would reduce resistance and is therefore desirable. It is almost as if you have a larger gauge wire. I've got some killer 6 gauge jumper cables that are stranded that do a far better job of transferring current than cheaper solid core models.

rw
I have trouble getting the large clamps to stay on my binding posts without shorting. So you're saying there should be another parameter we should consider, resistance, capacitance, inductance and CRANKING AMPS?

[audio amateur]

In theory then, and other things being equal, 11 awg stranded would work better for audio than 11 awg solid core?

[E-Stat]

I have trouble getting the large clamps to stay on my binding posts ... CRANKING AMPS?
LOL!

rw

[E-Stat]

In theory then, and other things being equal, 11 awg stranded would work better for audio than 11 awg solid core?
It would most surely have lower resistance and would therefore be desirable. Usually, however, all things are not equal with the other two metrics and the level of shielding. And few tests consider the amplifier, the speaker and the cable as being part of a system. Certainly not "It all sounds the same provided the resistance is low enough" Roger Russell. :)

Solid core is more commonly found with the center conductor of an interconnect.

rw