intelesting... veddy intelesting...

[Rich-n-Texas]

You guys can spend big bucks on esoteric gizmos to pimp your systems all you want.
I've reduced the equation for marginal audio quality improvement down to a single a scientific expression:
The sounditude is directly proportional to the beerocity.

Dunno about you guys but by the time I grab the second six pack things sound so damn euphoric I can't imagine them getting any better...the best damn $10 I ever spent on my system!

Ya know, I thought I was the only one. Maybe I AM normal.

[E-Stat]

Wasnt that way in the seventies, then audio was solid state...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you are unfamiliar with Audio Research and Conrad-Johnson. Or that the SS replacements to earlier tube gear from a wide range of companies including Marantz, McIntosh, Dynaco, et.al. were inferior sounding.

For that, I sentence you to life without parole listening to the "lowest distortion" component of the decade, the Crown IC-150 preamp aka The ICK preamp.

rw

[GMichael]

You guys can spend big bucks on esoteric gizmos to pimp your systems all you want.
I've reduced the equation for marginal audio quality improvement down to a single a scientific expression:
The sounditude is directly proportional to the beerocity.

Dunno about you guys but by the time I grab the second six pack things sound so damn euphoric I can't imagine them getting any better...the best damn $10 I ever spent on my system!

Is that why my receiver sounds so good to me?

Beer run! Oh, that's off topic. Wine run!

[nightflier]

Well, coming from someone who's had the pleasure of slipping the 2 buck chuck in more than one blind testing, I can tell you it doesn't even fool wine newbies. It's actually fun to do, because they all know me as having a large wine collection, so they don't want to insult me by saying that what I brought sucks. You get such compliments as "hmmm not as nice as the last one, but it's drinkable" while they try to hide a decidedly puckered and puzzled look on their faces. But it's unmistakable that it doesn't compare to even a good wine in the $5 per bottle range. I should also add that because of the way that the wine is purchased, stored, and handled through Trader Joe's, it's unlikely you'll find even a decent bottle there - TJ's is a wine liquidator and treats the bottles the same way as the dried fruit.

Speaking of the white wine from Charles Shaw, yes it is a bit better, but it is very one-dimensional with no clear nose, a noticeable beginning, a sweet but uncomplicated middle and no finish to speak of. If you can spare a couple of extra dollars, there are a lot more interesting whites out there - and you should probably try a better store like BevMo.

Now does this apply to audio? Some gear makes a noticeable difference, but the most notorious and volatile area of confusion is with cables. Most people who don't hear anything different with a fancy cable compared to an average priced one, are told that their gear just isn't up to snuff. I don't buy that, and I also have heard very little difference between cables. I have heard differences in the quality of connectors and common-sense physical factors (a thin cable will usually sound thinner), but there seems to be no correlation to price.

One company I've gone a few rounds with is Audioquest. Frankly I can hear very slight differences between their most expensive stuff and their cheapest, but nothing between the middle ranges. Now maybe I have bad ears, or maybe my gear isn't up to snuff. Well, if so, then why should I invest in a fancy cable that I can't hear a difference in?

Here's some other thoughts:

- Why is it that when the magazines evaluate cables there are typically no measurements?

- Why does a vendor like Audioquest have so many different cable models?

- Does a $1500 cable sound better or just different than a $2000 one?

- Would anyone who spends $1500 on a cable ever say on this board or anywhere else that they can't hear a difference?

- At the higher price points, who has an equally expensive cable to compare it too?

I suppose the same can be said for any other type of gear, but with cables it's especially relevant, I think. A more expensive wine typically has more depth, complexity, and a longer enjoyment on the palate, I just don't think that a cable has the same cost/enjoyment ratio. Remember that most wines range in price from $2-200, but most cables range from $2-$2000. Can anyone really say that there is a 10-fold increase in enjoyment?

[pixelthis]

I'd SWEAR you're a computer program. You're personality is just all over the chart. I get what you're saying though (don't necessarily agree, but I get it).

Nice change of pace.
Being a true audiophile who actually cares about the sound instead of stoking his ego is hard these days.
But Kex is right about the beer index, and I find that a blond in the sack with me helps
the sound quality greatly.
As for a "computer" program, we all are computer programs, our hardwares just organic is all

[emaidel]

Interesting thread. I think the human mind, when informed as to a given parameter, will anticipate that very thing whenever an "A/B" testing is done. As many of us equate "expensive" with "better," it's not that unusual to believe that a wine (or an audio component) which we're told is more "expensive" than the other, will indeed taste, or sound, "better" than the first.

A better result when comparing two wines with each other, or two different pieces of audio equipment, would be to inform the taster, or listener, that the price points of the respective items are the same: then, there wouldn't be any preconceived notions that "more expensive" is "better."

I can attest to the fact that an aged cabernet will usually taste better than one recently bottled, and that quite often, a very costly old French wine will taste better than a recent vintage California wine, but I'll also admit that such isn't always the case: about 12 years ago, The Wine Spectator rated an $11 bottle of cabernet from The Hess Collection as "the wine of the year." Naturally, I ran out and bought all the remaining inventory of my local wine shop (which was only 6 bottles at the time!). The wine was absolutely phenomenal, especially for $11, but nothing coompared to a $150 bottle of a 1984 Caymus. Was that because the Caymus cost more than 10 times as much? No, it was just because the Caymus was a better tasting wine, but not necessarily the better value.