Can we categorize exotic cables as luxury rather than necessity?

[DMK]

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

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

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

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

[DMK]

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

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

[Rockwell]

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

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

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

Null Hypothesis

rw

[mtrycraft]

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

Null Hypothesis

rw

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

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

[mtrycraft]

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

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

[mtrycraft]

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

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

rw

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

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

[E-Stat]

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

You know, bud your reading retention really sucks. Read my post again. See the word "audio"?

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

rw

[E-Stat]

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

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

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

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

rw

[skeptic]

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

http://www.arsenal.net/dc/dcboard.ph...id=3411&page=2

Postings by SteveF and Tom Tyson were especially interesting.

[Rockwell]

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

Null Hypothesis

rw

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

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

[E-Stat]

Acoustic Research used to use DBTs in their advertising and at trade shows.

That sure is a blast from the past. The AR-3 would place that advertising during what, the Kennedy years?

Why didn't audiophiles embrace the AR speakers as the best in the market and keep AR a leader?

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

rw

[E-Stat]

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

Read my post again.

Choosing a receiver is a matter of personal preference in terms of features and capacity.

Or whichever one is on sale at BB or CC.

rw

[mtrycraft]

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


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

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

rw

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

[mtrycraft]

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

rw

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

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

[E-Stat]

You are just scared of the truth...

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

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

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

rw

[skeptic]

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

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

[E-Stat]

None of the speakers you cited were ever played one on one with a live musical source at a demo.

What does that have to do with your question (and my response) concerning why the waskly audiophiles didn't continue to "embrace" AR?

rw

[skeptic]

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

But they are not as accurate as AR3 or AR3a were.

I think you'll find many consider the Larger Advent to be as accurate.

No full range electrostatic speaker ever was.

Please do share you thoughts on the sound and measured response of the Sound Labs U-1, Acoustat 8, and the Martin-Logan Statement to support your statement.

rw

[skeptic]

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

Some so called full range electrostatic speakers use a conventional woofer for the deep bass.

No, those would be called hybrids. That is certainly not the case with Acoustat, Sound Labs, Quad, etc.

I am not familiar with every one out there.

Obviously. For some reason, however, that doesn't prevent you from making absolute comments as the performance of that which you have no clue.

Deep bass reproduction is one of the electrostatic loudspeaker's inherent shortcomings.

Your mastery of the obvious is mindboggling.

I don't know of any electrostatic panel which can do that.

Since you know zilch about some of the top units available, that comes as no surprise.

In one of the early versions of the AR 12" acoustic suspension loudspeaker, the woofer was paired with a JanZen electrostatic tweeter. Vilcher could have gone that way if he felt it had given the best results. The fact that he didn't suggests to me that there were shortcomings of electrostatic speakers he found unacceptable.

D'ya think? How would a two way speaker sound with a 12" woofer and an electrostatic tweeter array? Can you say discontinuity?

BTW, AR invented among many other devices commonly used today and taken for granted, the dome tweeter. Ferro fluid cooling too.

Tell me, how has your stock portfolio with them done over the years?

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

LOL! Well at least your references are moving forward somewhat in time. That would be about thirty years ago. Yep, those babies sounded exactly like a 'stat. NOT. They were, however, pretty decent floorstanders when I heard them back in 1973 . That same dealer also sold AR and had a pair of LSTs on display. Based on the glowing reviews of that day, I thought that hearing those would be a treat. Boy was I mistaken. I'll never forget what the salesperson called them: toads.

rw

[Beckman]

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

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

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

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

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

[skeptic]

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

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

[mtrycraft]

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



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

rw

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

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